NPDES Program
Regulations and Preambles
1994-1995
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Management
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
1994
-------
Federal Re jster I. VoL 59; No. 24 L.Thursday.. December 22 1994.1 Notices.
66o3a.
.-
Name
Atfi l iaaon
Scott Trezak -
Mosta,th.Ptalt & Assoc ’ates.
945 Oaldawn A iue,
-
EIn er st.lL60128.
Jim Fanning ..
Independent ccnsuttariL P0
Box 2752. Unon City. PA
-
164 &
(FRL-612541
Draft Arctic General NPOES Pennit for
Oil and Gas Exploration In Wateis of
the United States: General NPDES
Permft No. AKG284200 -
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency. Region 10.
ACTION: Extension of tile Public
Comment Penod.
SUMMARY: On September 15. 2994. EPA
provided notice of the draft general
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit no.
AKG284200 for oil and gas stratigraphic
and exploration wells on the Alaskan
Outer Continental’ Shelf and contiguous
state waters. Development and
production wells axe not authorized to
discharge by this permit. The public -
comment period schedule was . . -
published in the notice. At the request
of intirested parties. EPA is today
providing notice that the public
comment period has been extended. -
ORIGINAL PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUANCE DATES
September 15. 1994.
EXTENDED PUBUC NOTICE EXPIRATION
DATEs: January 20. 1995.
PUBLiC COW&ENT Interested persons
may submit written comments on the
draft general NPDES permit to the
attention of Anne Dailey at the address
below. AU comments should include
the name. address. and telephone
number of the commenter and a concise
statement of comment and the relevant
facts upon which it is based. Comments
of either support.or concern which are
dimcted at specific, cited permit
requirements are appreciated.
Comments must be submitted to EPA on
or.before the extended expiration date of
the public notice.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD: The complete
administrative record for the draft
permit is available for public review at
the EPA Region 10 office at the address
listed below. Copies of the draft general
NPDES permit and fact sheet are
available upon request from ih. Region
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
A.N.B. Holding Company, LTD.;
Formation of, Acquisition by, or
Merger of Bank Holding Companies
The company Listed in this notice has
applied for the Board’s approval under
section 3 of the Bank Holding Company
Act (12 U.S.C. 1842) and § 225.14 of the
Board’s Regulation Y (12 C R 225.14) to
b ome a bank holding company or to
acqwre a bank or bank holding . -
company. The ( ctors that are
considered in acting on the applications
are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act
( 12.LLS.C. 1842(c)). . ...: —
The application is available for
immediate inspection at the Federal -
Reserve enk indicated. Once the-
appliestion has been accepted for -.
processing. it will also be available for
inspect ion at the offices of the Board of
Co ismors. Interested persons may -
express their views in writing to the
Reserve Bank indicated for that
application or to the offices of the Board
of Governors. Any comment on an
application that requests a hearing must
include a statement of why a written
presentation would not suffice in lieu of
a hearing, identifying specifically any
questions of fact that are in dispute and
summarizing the evidence that would
be presented at a hearing.
Comments regarding this application
must be received not later than January
17. 1995.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
(Genie D. Short. Vice President) 2200
North Pearl Street. Dallas, Texas 75201-
2272:
I: A.N.B. Holding Company. LTD..
Terrell. Texas; to acquire 30 percent of
the voting shares of The ANB
Corporation. Terrell. Texas: The ANB
Delaware Corporation. Terrell. Texas:
and The American National Bank of.
TexTell, TerrellrTexas. -
Board of Governors of the Federal Reseit’e
System. December 16. 1994.’ -
Jennifer J. Jo s .
17eputySecretor of the Board
IFR D cc. 94—31453 Filed 12—21—94; 8:45 aml
O 1LU COOS S210.Oi-P
The campany listed in this notIce has -
filed an application under §‘225.23(a)(1)
of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR
225.23(a)(1)) for the Board’s approval
under section 4(c)(8) of the Bank -
Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C.
1843(c)(8H and S 225.21(a) of Regulation
Y (12 CFR 225.21(a ) ) to commence or to
engage de nova, either directly or
through a subsidiary, in a nonbanking
activity that is lIsted in § 225.25 of
Regulation Yas closely related to
banking and permissible for bank
holding companies. Unless otherwise
noted,such activities will be conducted
throughout the United States.
..The application is available for
immediate inspection at the Federal
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the -
application has been accepted For
processing. it will also be available for
inspection at the offices of the Board of
Governors. Interested persons may.
express their views in wnl4ng on the
question whether consummation of the
proposal can “reasonably be expected to
produce benefits to the public, such as
greater convenience, increased
competition, or gains in efficiency, that
outweigh possible adverse effects, such
as undue concentration of resources.
decreased or unfair competition.
conflicts of intetests. or unsound
banking practices.” Any request for a
hearing on this question must ho
accompanied by a statement of the
reasons a written presentation would
not suffice in lieu of a hearing.
identifying specifically any questions of
fact that are in dispute. summarizing the
evidence that would be presented at a
hearing. and indicating how the party
commenting would be aggrieved by
approval of the proposal.
Comments regarding tha application
must be received at the Reserve Bank
indicated or the offices of the Board of
Covernors not later than January 5.
1995.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas
,City (John E. Yorke. Senior Vice
President) 925 Grand Avenue. Ka.icas
City. Missouri 641 R
TABLE 1 .—PANEL MEMBERS— : lO Public Information Center at 1—800—
- Continued - • 424-4EPA (4372).
ADORESSE Public comments should be
sent to: Anne Dailey, Environmental -
_______ ProtectionAgency Region 10, _____
Wastewater Management and
Enforcement branch (WD— 137). 1200
Sixth Avenue. Seattle, Washington. _____
9811)1. : - -
_________ __________________ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anne Dailey. of EPA Region 10, at the - First Commerce Bancshares, Inc.;
address listed above or telephone (206) Notice of Application to Engage de
- 553—2110. -. .. novo In Permissible Nonbanking
- . . - . Activities
IER D cc. 94—30873 FLied 12-21-94:8:45 aml
nues coos eiI D - -
Dated: December 13. 1994. -
Sylvia Kawabata. -h-- -
Acting Director. Water Division “‘S
(FR Doc. 94—31461 Filed 12—21—04; 8:45 aml
‘ coos .e os-. -
-------
Federal aegiater 1 ‘ ol. t9. No. 2411 ./ Fciday. December 16. 1994 / Notices
65041
conformity of the pmposed n with
equimmemLOf emItiVoQ & 1z a.
ER? tQo D . OSPI- 11023-MDRs g
EC2. Navel ir Wa aieCerV r L1,r, ft
Consn ion. Patuxent Ri .SL
Marys.Calvurt and
MD.
Summmy: EPA expressed
environmentaLcozuanes regarding water
conservation and requested ihat
wetlandsand lorest habitat be more
ci defined in,tha L xi ii £15.
Final EISa
ER? No. F-BLM- 5044-FL Flor ida
Land and Resource Mimigument Plan.
Imp titian. Split-Estate Federal
Mineral Owaerahip (FMO). several
Count . FL.
Summaiy EPA expressed
environmental concerns over habitat
loss from thipw u.ud alternative and
suggests the WifhIii ’hiie State Forest
prohibit hntne limsstenes 1 - The
final EIS was respan toother
concerns EPA expressed in tbe draft
£1 5.
ER? No. F-CCD-D5000$-VA Parallel
Crossing of the 1 .u..ku Bay.
Construction andOpi fioa. US 13
be wean ibeiDelmmwa Pextixisula and
iiehiestem Virginia. Funding . COE
Lection tOned 404 Pu uU ant*CA D
Bridge Permit. Virginia fleeth. .
NurthampwwCounty. V.A.
Sumiiinry EPA emitinued to excpmm
eriviromnental objection to the preferred
alternanve and bit theQuat Guard did
not adequately consider the 1987
Chesapeake Bay Agreement with respect
to induced growth.
ER? No. F-FRW-J40129-WY US 14,
J.S/W Highway Imp iATVlPflt5 . Cody to
Yeflowstoxia National Park Highway.
Funding and COE Section 404 Permit.
Shosbone National Foresi.Park County.
WY.
Sununaz r EPA had no objections to
the project as prnpomd. rlier cencerns
regarding water quality we addressed
in the Final L 1S.
ER? No. F-TVA-E65041-00 Land
Between The Lakes .(LBU Natural
Resource Management Plan.
Implementation. KY and Th.
Summary: EPA had envrronmental
concerns regalding timharing and
encouraged reduations in these impacts.
EPA felt thaUhe preferred iitamathe
increased resource preservation.
ER? No. F—UMT—J40119—UT 1—15/
State Street Corridor Highway and
Transit Improvements. Ftmdmg. Salt
Lake County. UT.
Summary: EPA had no objections to
tw project as proposed. Earlier
‘‘ . g mentel concens regarding
wetI.ulI and airqualikystandards were
adequately addressed in the final ElS .
Dated. December 13. 1994.
WIlliam D. Dickeraoo.
Director. Federal AgenqylJwson Division.
Office of Fedeml &iivft,es.
(FR Dec. 94—30993 Filed 12-4.5—94:8:45 antI
(ER-FRL-4718 .4J
Environmental Impact S1l1oui ,ta ;
Notice of Availability
Responsible Agenvy ( ffl u ofFoderal
Acth’ities. Information *02)
260—507605(202) 280—3075.
Weekly ireceipt ofEnvfronmantal
Impact Ste ementsPihaFDecem 05.
t994 Through Deonn 09. 11994
Pursuant to40 R 13O6. .
EIS No. 94O4g9,.FlNALEIS.iI .
Houston Metropolitan Detention
Center. Site Selemmtion.Consti’netwn
and Operation. City of Houston.
Harris County. TX. Due: January 18.
1995. Contact: Pauida (2OZ5fl4—
6470.
.EIS No. 940500. DRMTSDPPLEMENT.
AFS. AK. Shamrock ThahuwSaias.
Timber Harvertingand tRead
Construction. Updated lnfo” ’e.
Stikine Arm. Kupreenof :IsIand.
Toxigesa National forest.
ron. AK Due January 30.
199L tm 9 Jim Thinnp.w 1.987)
772-587L
EIS No. 940501.. DRAFTEIS. #ics. ID.
StibniteGoLd Mine Expansion Project.
Construction and Operation. PLan of
Operation Approval. NPI ES Permit
and COE Section 404 Permit. iPayene
National Forest. Krassel 1 nger
District. Va1leyC.nnr ty. ID. Due:
February 14. 1995. Contact: Jane
Wu er (206) .034-0814.
£15 No. 940502. DRAFT EIS. AES. UT.
Upper Pravo River Reservoirs
Stabthmlina Pro ject. hnpI imentatmnn.
Wasatthrha.NaHn I Forest.
Ranger Uis ct. 5ummti
r jy . UT, Due: January 31. 1993.
Contact Melissa BlackweU (801)7.93-
4338.
EIS No.940303. DRAFT EIS.COE. CA.
Humboldt Harbor and Bay
Deepenrng) Channels Peasibility
Study for Navigation imForlaments.
Humboldt County. CA. Due: January
30. 1995. Contact: Tamara Terry (455)
744—3341.
EIS No.940504. FINAL EIS. IJSN. NC.
Camp Lejeune Marine Carps Lane.
Disposal of Nan-Hazardous Solid
Waste Project. Implementation. COE
Section 404 and NPDES Permits.
Ozislow County. NC. Due: January 16.
1995. Contaut Ji tnOmans (7.03)699—
.0966.
EIS No. 940505. DRAFT ElS. GSA. irift
Food and Daug .Adminis*m lion
Cnn . t inn . Lit. Selection.
Monlgomaz y.Cni ntyCa x irpus.
Montgomery and P.rwra Georges
Counties. MD. Due: February i2.
199S,Goetact: lag Bhazgava (202)
708—5 O4.
Amended Notices
EIS No.940354. DRAFTEIS. COE. MO.
ND. SD.NB. IA. ICS.ldissotzn River
Master Water p pe i
Multipurpose Prqject. SD. F B. IA.
MO. Due Maid 01. 1.995.Contct:
Lawrence Ciaslik.(402 221—7360.
Publtsted ?R—09—30—94—-Review
period extanded.
EIS No.940414. DRAFT SUPPLEMENT.
FAA.’ItlJ. E piuded East Coast Plan.
Changes in A ft Flight Patterns
over the Stare of New eTsey. Updated
Information, Implementation. NJ. Due:
Vthruary 09. 1995. Contact: William
Mez,mt2CJ2) 257—7900. Poblished FR—
l0-W-94—Revrew Period Reope icd.
Dated: D-’ - ’ 11. 1S94.
Wllhka D. DIckarwe .
Director. Fed r&Ageni ,Lsoison D,isi t
Of flee of Federal AcliwJies
(FR Doc. 94—30992 FlIed 12—15—94. I I 45 intl
— ‘ coos urns-so u
PRL-61Il3-t ?4P ES.N . FLG OO09J
Reissnance of .the.Natlonal p 4
DIs avge Elimination System
( NPDES) General Permit For
D atodnu end PeUnteum Fuel
Contaminated GrounWStorvv Waters in
the Stat, of Florida
AGENCY: Environmental Protect:on
Agency.
ACTION: Noticeof Final Rule—
ReiseuAn of a NPDES General Permit
to the State of Fiarida.
SunenmY: The Regional Admimstrator.
EPA. Region IV Is re4c Ithtg the final
National Pollutant Discharge
System (NFDES) General
Permit No. FLC830000 to facilities
within the poliLicel boundaryof the
State of,F6rAu This final reissued
NPDES general .permit contains affluent
limitations, prohibitions, reporting
reqniriunents.aad other .cowlitions no
facilities which discharge
uncontaminated ground vater associated
with dewatering or treated groundwater
andlor’storxn water incidental to the
groundwater clienup operation which
have been contiminwed by automotive
gasoline. aviation and/or diesel fueltj.
This permit authorizes diccharces from
-------
65042
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 241 / Friday. December 16. 1994 / Notices
facilities currently located in and
discharging to surface waters within the
political bo.lnI4Ary of the State of
Florida, and any new treatment facilities
placed In operation during the term of
this permit. Reissuance of this final
NPDES will allow general dewatering
and cleanup actions at petroleum
contnmin ted sites to begin without the
delays of individual NPDES permit
issuance procedures.
For facilities seeking coverage for
general dewatering discharges. coverage
under the general permit is automatic.
upon the pennittee’s receipt of
acceptable groundwater screening
values, as described in Part LA.3(c) of
the general permit. The effluent from
these general dawatering activities shall
be monitored wfthin thirty (30) days
after commencement of the discharge
and once every six months for the life
of the project to maintain coverage
under the general permit. Additionally.
short4enn pump tests, eight (8) hours in
duration or less, shall be automatically
covered upon receipt of the permittee’s
Notice of Intent (NO!) by EPA and the
peimittee will be responsible for
meeting the requirements of Parts LA.1
or A.2. D s shall be submitted within
thirty (30) days after completion of the
pump t discharge.
Except for facilities meeting the above
conditions, all other facilities seeking
coverage under the general permit by
NO! requests will be responded to by
written notification of coverage by
certified mail from the Director. Water
Management Division. U.S. EPA Region
IV. This method of notification will be
applicablelo both new dlschargers
applying for coverage for the first time
and e dsting dlsi 4 wgers which are
seeking coverage under the reissued
general permit Facilities which are
currendy discharging under the
previous NPDES general permit are
required to submit another NO!
requesting . g. under the reissued
general permit by February 14.1995. In
accor i I . a with Part U. Section F(b).
DATE& This general permit Is effective
on Deci h.r 7,1994. at 1:00p.m.
Eastern Daylight Savings TIme.
Dates for wv ge (1) Dewatering
Activity discharges are authorized upon
the permittee’s receipt of acceptable
groundwater sereening values listed in
Part LA.3. (2) Short.Term Pump Test
discharges, eIght (8) hours in duration
or less, are authorized upon receipt of
a complete NO!. as described in Part II.
Section F(l). (3) Petroleum
Cont*.vthinted discharges, are only
authorized after written notification of
coverage by certified mail from the
Director. Water Management Division.
U.S EPA Region iv is received.
This action constitutes the
Environmental Protection Agency’s final
permit decision. In accordaiice with
Title 40. Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) 124.72.
The administrative record. including
draft NPDES general permit, fact sheet.
state certification, comments received.
and additional information are available
by writing the EPA. Region IV. or for
review and copying at 345 Courtland
St.. N.E.. Atlanta, GeorgIa 30365.
between the hours of 8:15 AM. and 4:30
P.M.. Monday through Friday. Copies
will be provided at a omin I charge per
page. AdditIonal information
concerning the permit may be obtained
at the address and during the hours
noted above from Ms. Lena Scott. Public
Notice Coordinator, 404/347—3004.
AOORE$SA: Notifications required
under this general permit should be sent
to: Director. Water Management
Division. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Region IV. 345 Courtland
Street, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Request for Coverage: Written
notification of intent to be covered by
the general permit (if required) shall be
provided as described in the permit Part
II Section F.
FOR FURThER INFORMA’flCN CONTACfl
Larry Cole, Environmental Engineer.
Water Permits and Enforcement Branch.
Water Management Division. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 345
Courtland Street, N.E.. Atlanta. Georgia
30365. (404) 347—3012 ext. 2948.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMAfiC1I:
L Introduction
On Thursday. August 25. 1988 (53 FR
32442). EPA. Region IV proposed the
issuance of the draft NPDES General
Permit. During the 30.day comment
period, a request for an extension of the
comment period was received, and on
Tuesday. October 25. 1988 (53 FR
43035). the cnhllment period was
extended to November 15, 1988. On
Monday. July 17, 1989 (54 FR 29986),
EPA. Region IV Issued the Final NPDES
General Permit for Petroleum Fuel
Ground/Storm Waters in
the State of Florida.
On Friday, February 22. 1991 (56 FR
7379), EPA, Region l v published a
notice of a proposed modification to the
NPDES General Permit for Petroleum
Fuel Cont mrniited Ground/Storm
Waters in the State of Florida (56 FR
7379) to include dewatering activities.
On Thursday. August 29, 1991 (56 FR
42738), the final modification was
Issued. The general permit expired on
July 18, 1994. On Monday. September
19. 1994, EPA Region IV published a
notice concerning the reissuance of the..
general permit (59 FR 47862) that is
being Issued In final form today.
The Region received comments from
eight (8) commentors. All the public
comments received during the 30.day
comment period are included in the
administrative record and were
considered by Region IV in the
formulation of a final determination of
the conditions of today’s final permit.
For reference, Region IV published a
detailed fact sheet wflh the proposed
draft permit in 59 FR 47862. The Region
is incorporating by reference that fact
sheet as part of the final fact sheet for
today’s final permit. The discussions
presented in the previous fact sheet
should be consulted in reviewing the
applicability and scope of the final
permit conditions.
A formal hearing is available to
challenge any NPDES permit issued
under 40 CFR 124.14 except for a
general permit. Persons affected by a
general permit may not challenge the
conditions of a general permit as a right
in further agency proceedings. They
may instead either challenge the general
permit In court, or apply for an
Individual permit under 40 CFR 122.21
as authorized at 40 CFR 122.28 and than
request a formal hearing on the issuance
•or denial of an individual permit.
Additional Information regarding these
procedures Is available by contacting
Ms. Gwen Eason. Office of Regional
Counsel, at the address above or at (4041
347—2309.
IL Other Legal Requirements
A. Executive Order 12291
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this action from the
review requirements of Executive Order
12291 pursuant to Section 8fbJ of that
order.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements
Imposed on regulated facilities In this
final general permit under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,44
.U.S.C. § 3501 at seq. The Information
collection requirements of this permit
have already been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget in
submissions made for the NPDES permit
program under the provisions of the
Clean Water Act.
C. State Certification Requirements
Section 301(bUl)(c) of the Act
requires that NPDES permits contain
conditions which ensure compliance
with applicable State water quality
standards or limitations. SectIon 401 of
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 241 / Friday. December 16. 1994 / Notices
.
65043
the Act requires that States certify that
Federally issued permits are in
compliance with State law. This permit
is for ope ations discharging to waters
within the State of Florida. Pursuant to
40 CFR 124.53. EPA requested
certification of the permit on September
15. 1994. On October 27, 1994, the
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection waived certification of the
general permit.
D. Effective Date
The final NPDES general permit
issued today. December 6th. 1994. is
effective on December 7. 1994.
E. Regulatorj Flexibility Act
After review of the facts presented hr
this document. I hereby certify,
pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
§ 605(b). that this NPDES general permit
will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, the permit reduces a
significant administrative burden on
regulated sources.
Pabick M. Table,
DepuyRepjezwi Admznis mtor
Summary of Comments
Appendix A—Public Comments
Public notice of the draft permit
reissuance was published at59 FR
47862 (September 19. 1994).
Additionally, the permit was publicly
noticed in five (5) major cities In the
State of Florida on September 16. 1994.
(Public Notice Number 94FL0167). to
allow comments from Interested parties
which would be considered In the
formulation of a final decision regarding
reissuance of the proposed draft NPDES
General Permit No. FLG830000.
The following parties responded with
written comments on relasuance of the
proposed NPDES general permit:
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP), Chevron Research &
-rechnology Company. Morgan Lewis &
Bockius. Mobil Oil Corporation. E o’on
Company. Walt Disney World Company.
Florida Industry Council and
the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Comment 1: The Florida Department
- of Environmental Protection (FDEP).
Bureau of Waste Cleanup. submitted
comments by letter dated October 3.
1994. which c i .mented on Part LA3 of
the general permit The FDEP wanted
clarification concerning the intent of
l.A.3. FDEP stated that the
itement on Page two (2) of the
..itroduction states that - Except for
facilities meeting the conditions of Part
.3 wrItten notice of intent to be
covered by the reissued NPDES general
permit shall be provided to the Permit
Issuing Authority prior to Initiation of
discharge to waters of the United
States.” Implies that this includes
subparts of Part 1.3., including i.3.(a).
(bJ. and (c). FDEP stated that this
implies that for discharges that are
either unrnntn,nlnn or are
contnmin ted with petroleum only and
are treated, notification to EPA is not
required. It was stated that this is not
consistent with the phrase under L3(a)
which states “upon receipt of written
EPA notification of coverage that the
Notice of Intent (NO!) request is
complete. these short-term discharges
may commence.” The State mentioned
that this implies that not only must
prior notification be given by EPA for
the short-term discharges from sites
contRTnIi Rted by petrdeum only. but
that the person responsible for the
discharge must wait for a reply from
EPA. and this inconsistency should be
reconciled.
Response: EPA agrees that the
referenced statement on page 2 of the
introduction is incorrect. It has been
corrected to read, “except for facilities
meeting the conditions of Part LA.3(c).
written NO! to be covered by the
reissued permit shall be provided to the
Permit Issuing Authority.”
Comment 2: FDEP stated that It is not
reasonable to wait for a response from
EPA in order to Initiate a short-term
discharge for the following reasons: (1)
Chapter 62—770. requires that a
Remedial Action Plan (RAP) be
submitted to the FDEP wi thin 2 months
of approval of a Conthmin tioa
Assessment Report (CAR), and that It is
routine to require pump tests to design
information for the RAP, plus identify
aquifer characteristics. FDEP stated that
it is not reasonable to delay the RAP by
requiring prior approval from EPA of
these simple 8 hour pump tests. (2) Due
to varying hydrogeological conditions In
Florida. local departments commonly
perform dewatering activities in their
right-of-way of previous retail service
stations, plus have no information
before commencing these activities on
the existence of petroleum
con*AmiI AtIon. FDEP stated that these
construction projects should not be
delayed for an extended period to wait
on response from EPA. since mobile
treatment units can be deployed and
designed to meet EPA s discharge
limitations in the NPDES general
permit. (3) During dawatering for
construction and replacement of
underground storage tanks. FDEP
mentioned that it was not reasonable for
the tank installation to be delayed for an
extended period of time: especially
since discharges from these operations
only last for a few hours at a time and
mobile equipment used is very reliable
in achieving EPAs discharge standards.
Response: EPA concurs with ThEP
reason No.1 above which allows short’
term 8 hour pump tests at sites which
have identified petroleum
contAminAtion, to be covered upon
receipt of the NO! by the Permit Issuing
Authority. Only short-term pump tests.
8 hours In duration or less, designed to
obtain information on aquifer
characteristics, will be automatically
covered upon receipt of the permittee’s
NO!, and the permittee will be
responsible or meeting the discharge
limitations of Part £1 or A.2. General
Permit numbers will be assigned to
these sites and DMR’s sent with a copy
of the general permit and a letter
acknowledging receipt of the Notice of
Intent.
EPA responds to reasons# 2 endS 3
as proposed by the FDEP, which would
allow coverage by simply submitting an
NO! for local departments dewatering
projects or scheduled dewatering during
gasoline tank repI in,nta. k is EPA’s
understanding that the construction
activities desoribed in No.2 and No.3
are planned well in advance of the
initiation of the dewatering process. For
this reason. EPA sees no reason to
exempt these sites from NO!
requirements. Unless preliminAly
groundwater assesAments have been
performed along the right-of-way project
prior to startup, even the local
departments may be unaware of an
contnt ,iinated plume that may be
encountered during the road widening,
or excavation projects. The potential
problem EPA expects in waiving NO!
requirements for these activities, is the
lack of sufficient data to cover these
operations. The better approach would
be for the permittee to survey potential
problem areas well in advance of the
dewatering startup, identify the type of
contAminAtion and seek discharge
coverage under the NPDES general
permit using the NO! process. for those
potentially cont Aminhlted groundwater
discharge areas.
Comment 3: FDEP also questioned
whether the indicator criteria values
listed under Part I.A.3. should be
analyzed using untreated groundwater
or treated groundwater. FDEP also- -
stated that if the intent of Part LA.3 Is
to allow short term discharges from sites
contAminated with petroleum only. then
the indicators should be applied to
treated recovered groundwater, because
if these indicators were applied to
untreated groundwater. this would
preclude discharges from sites
contaminated with petroleum only
However. FDEP stated that applying
-------
65044
Federal Register! Vol. 59, No. 241 A Friday, December 16. 1994 / Notices
these indicato values to the treated
effluent may allow Ue t
akm tives that are capable of removing
the metals listed end b unue eligible to
dIstha nuder the general permit.
since the indicator values were not
exceeded feven if the of
contamination wan not petroleum in
nature).
Response EPA notes that the
indicator values apply to untreated
representative groundwater semples
from the vicinity of the proposed
produced groundwater discharge. These
could be tests from monitoring wells.
recovery wells, or samples of produced
groundwater taken prior to any
treatment and would not allow
treatment alternatives capable of
removing metals to be covered by this
general permit. It should be emphasised
that the intent of Part LA.3 is to allow
the discharge of produced groundwater
from an uncontaminated site activity. If
the site Is contaminated ‘with petroleum
fuels, the permit refers beck to Parts
t.Ai or LA.2.
Comment 4: FDEP requested EPA’s
determination on a particular issue
before the finalization of the general
permit. FOEP stated that many
petroleum sites are located in urban
areas, and other possible sources of
contamination may be Located in the
vicinity of the petroleum site. In these
situations commingling of plumes fium
non-petroleum sites may occur. It was
nosed that many sites p.. .fuzruing
Contamination Asseevnent Ripuit .
(CARs) bad detected low levels of 1t
or PCE for many sites which bed a dry
cleaner in the vicinity. FOEP stated that
since these solvents had similar
charactenstia and were volatile, most
treatment system designs based on
permit effluent requirements for the
petroleum compounds will emily
remove the or T(Z to non-
— detectable levels without any u thig
of equipment or addidonal freniment
processes. FDEP stated that other
compounds in relatively low
concentrations from off site amnoes
should not preclude eligibllity of the
gensrai permit for theovarell cleanup,
which is to reniedlate the petroleum
plume and requested EPA’s
determination on the-issue.
Respoasm EPA in We initial
conception of the general permit. only
made specific reference to
contamination from petroleum fuels and
referenced gasoline, aviation gas. diesel
and jet-fuel. The intent In inuring this
general permit was to provide general
permit coverage for the discharge of
treated petroleum contaminated
groundwater. ‘Fe cover other seurms of
contamination will require additional
research and public participation.
Because the general parent expired on
July 18. 1994. EPA sees an usgency to
reissue this pi it tharefore, EPA may
consider this Issue in the future through
a permit modlficatkm. EPA. after
collecting sufficient information. may
consider the inclusion of other
chemicals associated with dry deaners
in the near future, but due to the lack
of sufficient information, will not
address it at this time.
Comment 5: Qiewon Research and
Technology Company, by letter dated
October 4. 1994. requested a copy of the
NPDES Best Management Preetice
(liMP) Guidance Document.
Response: EPA met the NP OMP
Guidance document to Chevron on
October 13. 1994.
Comment 6 Morgan. Lewis & Bockius
(ML&B). Cottmsah ,s at Law, by latter
dated October 15, 1994, rued. two
comments concerning the permiL ML&B
mentln”.d that all references to Florida
Administrative Code Chapter 17—770,
17—302. or any other “17-” should be
changed to Chapter “62—770. or 62. 302.
and mentioned that Chapter “52— is
where the current law is found. ML&B
also mentioned that the Fact Sheet
should contain smite discussion of
discharge to snrface waters”,
triggering event. tvflAB also mentioned
that the permfttee should know where
to go lit order look up the definition of
“surface waters” or discharges to
surfece waters. Mentioned that these
Issues and basic guidance thereoi may
ensure that all facilities obligated under
the general’perinit actually apply for
coverage and dIscussion of this
significant jurisdictional Issue In the
Fact Sheet or permit itself seems
appropriate.
Response: EPA refers the omumentor
to the Clean Water Act (CWA) which
requires that point source discharges of
pollutants to waters of the United States
be w vr 5 d by NPDES permits. The
definition of .‘po source” and waters
of the U.s. ” can be found at 4OCFR
SectIon 122.2. AdditIonally, all
references that refer to Florida
Administrative Code Chapter “IT’ will
be changed to Florida Adnunistritive
Code Chapter “52.”
Comment 7: Mobil Oil Corporation
(MOC). by letter dated October 17, 1994.
supported the reissuance of the general
permit, since it is more efficient and
cost effective approach to permitting
routine activity than the individual
permitting process. MOC raised several
concerns on the draft NPDES general
permit concerning the new
requirements of the whole effluent
toxicity IWEFI tests. MOC stated that
the noed for VET testing has not been
established. it was stated that the Fact
Sheet cited that the chemical criteria
was signi cantly more stringent than
Florida’s water quality standards and
MOC stated that meeting the chemical
criteria, coupled with the required
treatment pru .- vs should be more
than adequate to protect aquatic life
Response: In response to MOC
comment, EPA notes that the chemical
specific discharge limitations
mentioned do provide adequate
protection to meet Florida’s chemical
specific water quality standards.
However, since previous toxicity
monitoring tests did indicate that a
number of effluents were imoc. which is
also a violation of Florida
Administrative Code (FAC) Section 17—
4.244(31(a). WE’!’ limits were
incorporated into the permit.
Comment 8: MOC stated that if WET
testing is required, the procedure
outlined in Part V should be modified.
MOC stated that if the compliance linut
for WET testing is an LC5O> 100%, the
requirement for a full con ntration test
is not warranted and only a enzng
test (control and 100% final effluent
only) should be rim to demc u*e
compliance.
Response: Regarding Mobil’s
comment on the use of multiple
dilutions, per the EPA acute WET
protocol manual (EPAIS0O!4- 901027F)
cited in the September 19.1994 Federal
Register notice, such dilutions are
recommended to assem NPDES
compliance for all WET tests (pg. 47—
48). They provide more information
about the dose-response of the test.
increase the statistical power of the test.
and decrease the inherent variability
found in conducting a single test
concentration witha control.
Comment 9: MOC stated that there
was no advantage to static-renewal
versus the static procedure for these
discharges and recmmnended the static
procedure for these WET tests.
Response: Regarding Mobil’s
counnent that static tests only be
conducted, the EPA acute WET protocol
manual PA/600/4-9O/027F) cited in
the Federal Register notice above
mandates the use of static renewal tests
for all tests exceedIng 48 hr (pg. 57,61.
65. 69). Because the acute WET tests
specified in this notice are 99-bra. in
duration, static renewals tests must be
conducted.
Comment 10: MOC also
recommended that the mandatory
requirement that recommended
concurrent standard reference loxicant
(SRTJ testing be removed, since this
provides linnted information on the
quality of the testlng.laboratory MOC
mentioned that requiring facilities to
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 241 / Friday, December 16, 1994 I Notices
65045
1 ay for these studies, when they receive
no benefit is inappropriate.
Response Regarding Mobil’s
comment on the required concurrent
standard reference toxicant (SRI)
testing with each WET test, the
ceptember 19,1994 Federal Register
notice does allow for monthly SRI
results to be submitted in lieu of such
concurrent tests. Regarding Mobil’s
comment on requiring contract
laboratories to conduct such SRI
testing. EPA does not currently have a
national laboratory certification program
for WET EPA does achnowledge that
some states do have such a certification
program Until a national ceftiflcation
program is established. EPA must have
some means to assess the quality of a
given laboratory’s performance. The use
of SRTs is one way of vn king that
assessment EPA notes that permittees
have the option of using in-house
capabilities to conduct such WET tests.
However, when pennittees rely on
outside laboratories to conduct WET
tests for NPDES compliance purposes.
the use of SRts is required. EPA
disagrees with Mobil’s comment that
such SRI tests have no benefit for the
perrnittee On the contrary, such SRI
testing serves to validate the quality and
precision of the WET tests conducted by
the contract laboratory on behalf o [ the
nermittee that ate submitted to the
permitting authority
Comment 11 MOC mentioned that
facilities covered by the existing, but
expired general permit may be required
to perform another testing requirement.
such a EPA 624 and 625 although this
sampling was performed for the existing
general permit.
Response EPA does not agree that
facilities already discharging under the
general permit be excluded from
performing an additional test analysis
on the effluent using EPA methods 624
or 625 priority pollutant scan. This
requirement conforms with the
reapplication data ne eary for
individual permits in which a permittee
is required to retest the effluent to
obtain accurate information which
determine possible changes In effluent
..haracteristics. This priority pollutant
scan shall be performed within 60 days
of startup of the produced water
discharge. or within 60 days after
receipt of notification of coverage from
EPA for facilities currently discharging
.znder the previous general permit
Cnmn’ent 12: Exxon Company. (EC).
cy letter dated October 20. 1994, stated
that some risk-based analysis is an
important element in establishing water
quality criteria for certain processes.
and that the proposed 1.0 ug/.l benzene
effluent limit appears to be absent of
any risk-based approach. EC stated that
scientific data does not warrant the
restrictive 1.0 ugh benzene effluent
limit for release into surface water and
is even more stringent than that
required under Florida Administrative
Code (FAC) 17—302.530 for Class I
potable water supplies and
recommended that the national limit of
5.0 ugh be substituted as the benzene
effluent limit.
Response: EPA concurs that the 1.0
ugh limit for benzene is more stringent
than Florida’s water quality standards.
The limitation for benzene is based on
the best treatment technology available
and happens to be more stringent than
FAC 17—302.530(9fl4/25194j, Class I
potable water supplies which is 1.18 ugh
L The 1.0 ugh limitation is also moze
stringent than Florida Class ill water
quality standard, which requires an
annual average limitation of 71.28 ugh
for benzene. Therefore, since technology
has proven capable of consistently
maintaining the 1.0 ugh limitation for
benzene and numerous permittees have
consistently designed treatment systems
that meet the requirements of the
NPDES general permit. EPA will retain
the benzane limit. In addition.
maintaining the 1.0 ug/l bennene limit
complies with Section 402(01(1) of the
Water Quality Act of 1987. which states
that a permit may not be renewed.
reissued. or modified to contain effluent
limitations which are less stringent than
the comparable effluent limitations in
the previous permit except in
compliance with SectIon 303 (d)(4).
Comment 13: Exxon Company (EC)
mentioned that the acceptable pH for
treated effluent under the previous and
proposed NPDES general permit is 6.0—
8.5 standard units (SU5), and mentioned
that many lakes and streams in Central
and North Florida have a pH range of
5.0-6.0 SUs. EC stated that many
Influent pH samples for remedial pump
and treat systems are also in this range
and recommended reducing the allowed
lower limit from 6.0 to 5.5 SUs.
Response: In response to EC comments,
the pH language in the current proposed
draft permit does allow some variation
for pH depending on natural
background of the receiving water.
However, this natural background data
must be furnished to EPA by the
permittee in the initial NO! request; in
order to be considered in determining
the pH range for the facility during the
notification of coverage request. It
should be noted that the pH of the
receiving stream, not the influent or
effluent, influences the pH permit
limits.
Comment 14: Exxon Company (EC)
commented on Part I.A.3 concerning the
screen for metals that would indicate
contamination from sources other than
petroleum fuels. EC mentioned that it is
unwarranted to require screening for
additional metals that are not ordinarily
considered constituents of petroleum
fuels as a basis for securing a NPDES
general permit for petroleum fuel
contnminntlon. EC mentioned that if
there is a cause for this additional.
screening at a particular site, the
regulatory processes in place will
generate the additional site investigation
and testing needed. instead of testing
every site whether justified or not and
recommended that the screening for
other metals be removed as a
requirement from the NPDES general
permit EC mentioned that if additional
metal testing is required, annual testing
is much more appropriate than semi-
annual. especially for groundwater
remedial systems at underground
storage tank cleanup sites.
Response: In response to Exxon
Company (EC) comments. EPA clarifies
the misconception that contaminated
petroleum fuel sites must perform the
Part LA.3 testing requirements for
metals: these discharges must comply
only with the requirements of Part l.A.1
or LA.2. EPA refers to the general
applicability of Part LA.3. that allows
produced water discharges from any
noncontaminated site, which could
Include dewatering for tank removals.
construction activity, or aquifer pump
tests from water wells. Any point source
discharge of pollutants to waters of the
U.S. requires an NPDES permit.
regardless of whether the site is
contaminated or uncontaminated. EPA.
in Its approach to covering dewatering
of produced grounchfrater associated
with any activity, placed the burden for
verification on the permittee for
determining that the site groundwater
has not been conthn inated with sources
other than petroleum fuels. Requiring
all perinittees to perform this screening
alLows facilities performing dewatering
activities to be placed under the general
permit, assuming that the screening
reveals no cont*inin tion from sources
other than petroleum fuels.
Comment 15: Eiocon Company (EC)
mentioned that the Discharge
Monitoring Report forms should be
revised and the reporting procedure
should be simplified. Also, mentioned
that the quality of forms initially
received from EPA tend to become
Illegible when photocopied. EC also
requested that EPA retain the current
level of bioassay testing Instead of
increasing the frequency as proposed.
Response: EPA will. send original
Discharge Monitoring Reports to the
perinittee so that more legible
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 241 / Friday. December 16. 1994 / Notices
photocopies can be pr, 11r ‘A
recommends that these originals be
m i,th%ined by the pemittee for copying
purposes. In releie to the M iay
requirements, psonafte. which have
previously obtained covesege under this
general permit. which eillueats have not
demonstrated unacceptable toidaty (LC
50 c 100%), may continue to sample 1/
year. All sampling procedures and test
methods must comply with Part V. It
should be noted that the permit limit
identified in Part V Is applicable to
those facilities covered by this general
permit under Se ons LiLt and I.A.2.
Comment 1& Walt Disney World
(WDW) Company, by letter dated
October 18, 1994. submitted comments
on the Reissuance of the NPDES General
Permit for the State of Florida. WDW
made general comments concerning the
proposed effluent limitations for (1)
Total Organic Carbon and (23 pH. for
discharge of unconz inAted produced
groundwater. WDW mentioned most of
the tint ont uninated groundwater below
their property exceeds EPA’s proposed
total organic carbon (TOC) limitation
solely because of its naturally ocurring
properties. WOW indicated that only
lakes on the property fall below the 10
mg/i requirement and four isolated
wetlands had TOC values averaging
betterthan9 omgliarbetter.wlthall
other TOC values ranging between 10
and 65 inaJL WDW mentioned that
these organic compounds are naturally
osmoming and large. greater than 500
molecular weight, most of which w , tqt
of bumic aads which generally come
front the decomposition of organic
matter.
Respoase EPA concuru that some
elevated TOC levela are th. result of
naturally occurring conditions.
Therefore. EPA will revise the language
in Pag lA.3 to read asfellowm ifany of
the analytical test results. ( except TOC,
benzene or naphih 1 i 4. mi*..d the
above screening values th . discharge Is
not suthodrad by this general permit.
For excessive hansen. er naphtbslem
r nr nh HOns , see Past L3(a) below.
For initial esmve ICC values that
may be caused by natuafly..ocsurnng,
high mol ”I ’ weight organic
compounds. the permittee may su t
additional information which describes
the method used to prove that these
compounds are naturally oouirnng
compounds. This additional
information shall be submitted to EPA
during the filing of the NO! request for
coverage under the general permit EPA
will review this data and determine if
coverage under the general permit Is
17: WaIt Dimey World
(WOW) made r1 m nj3 concerning the
ph limitatIon as proposed in the NPDES
general permit. WDW mentioned that
the pH of the watem on the WDW
property range between 3.7 and 7.7
standard units. WDW mentioned that
the gtnernl permit should allow
rH.tcharge of unconfaniin ted produced
groundwaters into any receiving waters
so long as the produced groundwater pH
falls within the lower an& upper
background pH limits of the receiving
waters as determined from smapling
data submitted by the applicant in the
Notice of Intent (NOl) request
Response: Since the pH requirements
as proposed ale based on Florida
Administrative Code (FAC) Section 17-
302.530(523(c), EPA will retain the
language in the final NPDES general
permit.
m1T1ant i& The Florida Chemical
Industry Counal (FCC). by letter dated
October 21,1994, mentioned that the
proposed permit requires all produced
groundwater discharges to submit
analytical results to EPA. regardless of
project-size or duration even if
contamination is undetected. FCC
mentioned the permit should allow a do
, ninimig limit, so that very small
construction projects will not be
required to report and would eliminate
small projects that do not involve
cleanup at uncoutamineted sites.
Response: The Clean Water Ad
(CWA) does not allow for exclumon
based on the volume of the discharge.
However, having all potential
pe ftees perform the analytical wean
for any produced groundwater discharge
to surface waters of the U.S.. places the
burden on the potential discharger to
verify that the groundwater is
mr ini inin ted prior to discharge
regardless of the length of discharge.
The CWA requires that all point source
discharges of pollutants to waters of the
U.S. be authorized by NPDES perizuts.
t’rnnmnni 19: The United States, Fish
and Wi1iflif Service (FWS) submitted
genmal on the NPO
general permit No. FLG830000. The
FWS recemmended that the be
denied mist . it Includes discharge
limitations and ether appropriate t.t. t
conditions that will assure the
malnt , m of natural pre.piuject
habitat quality. includingi (a) Water
quality. (b) sediment quality end. (c i
vegetative species diversity and
ab .imImw ’ . plus the best available
technology and tific date be
utilized to avoid any adverse efk on
fish and wildlife, their behavior, and the
repriirtkv. of any species.
Response: Since some technology
based limits in this general permit are
more slsLmgent than Florida’s w
quality standaith. and the Water
Quality-based limits are besed an
Flonda s water quality standards, EPA
believes that the m ” ”ce of pro.
proj water quality will be
maintained. Additionally, the
requirement to perform acete toxicity
testing on more sensitive organisms
assures that adequate monitoring isin
place to avoid potential adverse impacts
on fish and wildlife.
III. Other Changes to Final NPDES
General Permit at lasuanon
1. The word “Dewazering” was added
to the title of the final issued permit to
indicate that the permit covers general
dewater ing.
2. In Part I.A.3 the language was
revised to read: The following are the
minimum reporting requirements for eli
produced groundwater dlschargers
which have acceptable screening value
results as described below
Additionally, the language was revised
to allow initial sampling to begin within
thirty (30) days after commencement of
discharge.
3. In Part l.A.3(c) end imPart I I.
Section F g). the language was revised to
allow the short summery and analytical
results to be sent one (1) week after
discharge begins.
Permit No. FLG830000
General Permit To Discharge Under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
In compliance with the previsions of
the Clean Water Act. as amended 33
U.S.C. 1251 at seq; the “Act”),
Discharges of uncontaminated
groundwater from dewatering activities.
treated groundwater end incidental
storm water, which are ist
with g ç” 1 or aviation foal... ,.
authorized to discharge to watem of
United States within the S of Florida
In accoi,Innr with effimait flini2 tlo 0 s.
monitoring requirements and
conditions set forth herein. This final
permit consists of Pert I, Past I, Part m.
Part IV, and Part V.
This permit shail I ecu . . . eff 4vo c ii
Decober 7, 1994. This permit end the
authorization to dlwhamge shall expire
at midnight. Eastern Daylight Savings
Time, on Decembor . loon.
Date Issued: December 6. tea.
Robert F. McGhee.
Acting Director. Water Management Divirjo .
Part I
A. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
Requlremmtai Existing Sources and
New Diachargem
L During the period beginning on the
effective daze of the permit and lasting
-------
Federal Register / VoL 59. No. 241 / FrIday! December 16. 1994 / Notices
65047
through the term of this pernut. the Automotive Gasoline. It is anticipated necessary. or equivalent treatment to
,ermittee is authorized to discharge that these c .mt. ninated waters will be meet the following effluent limitations.
treated groundwater and storm water treated by air stripping, followed by Such discharges shall be limited and
that has been contaminated by activated carbon adsorption. if monitored by the permittee as specified
below:
Discharge hmitatorn Monitormg reqwrements
Effluent characteristic
Measurement Sample
Daily avg Daily max frequency type
Flow. MGD — .... . Report .... Report .... Continuous — Flowmater.
Eenzer . jigll .____._ - . 10_ llmonth —— Grab.
TotaI Lead, pgIl ........._________________ 30.0 . ...... llui inth ._ Grab.
pH. standard units . -—— — ....—. . - -...-..- . .- -- - --- _... See Below
Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity ...._......... . . . See Part V Grab.
Moniicmrg for ti pamiester is reaurad only when collamnatron tesufts from leaded fueL
An LC 50 of 100% or less in a test of background for fresh and coastal waters, location(s): Nearest accessible point
96 hours duration or less will constitute If natural background of the receiving after Snal treatment but prior to actual
a violation of Florida Administrative water, as revealed by sampling data discharge or niiiong with the receiving
Code (FAC) (July 11, 19931 § 62— from the permittee in the NOI request, waters. -
4.244(3)(a) and the terms Qf this permit. is determined to be higher than 8.5 A. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
The testing for this requirement must units, the p11 shall not vary above
conform with Pail V of this permit. natural background or vai more than Reriuir’einenta: Existing Sources arid
For fresh waters and coastal waters, one (1) unit below natural background New Dlschargers
the pH of the effluent shall not be of fresh and coastal waters. The 2. During the period beginning on the
lowered to less than 6.0 units for fresh acceptable p11 range will be included in effective date of the permit and lasting
waters, or lass than 6.5 units for marina the letter granting permit coverage and through the terra of this permit. the
waters, or raised above 8.5 units. un1 on the DMR. The pH shall be monitored permittee is authorized to discharge
the permiuee submits natural once every month by grab sample, or treated groundwater and storm water
background data in the NOl request continuously with a recorder (See item that has been contaminated by Aviation
confirming a natural background pH 1.3.4). • Gasoline, Jet Fuel or DieseL
3utside of this range. If natural In accordance with FAC § 62— It Is anticipated that these
background of the receiving water, as 302.500(1)(a-cX4—25—93). the discharge contaminated waters will be treated by
revealed by sampling data from the shall at all times be free from floating air stripping, followed by activated
permittee in the NO! request. is solids, visible foam, turbidity, or visible carbon adsorption, if necessary, or
determined to be less than 6.0 units for oil In such amounts as to form equivalent treatment to meet the
fresh waters, or less than 6.5 units in nuisances on surface waters. following effluent limitations. Such
marine waters, the pH shall not vary Samples taken in compliance with the discharges shall be limited and
below natural background or vary more monitoring requirements specified monitored by the parmittee as specified
than one (1) unit above natural abuve shall be taken at the following below:
Discharge limitations Monitoring requirements
Shiftiest characteristic
Measurement Sample
Daily avg Daily frequency type
Flow, MGD .._ ._. .... . . .., Report .... Report,... Continuous..... Flowmeter.
Benzene. gfl — .-..--.....— ...._ - ..__. .._ 1.0 -. llm onth Grab.
Naphthalene. i l ....-...-—.. --...-—... ...... _. _ 100.0 ._. llmonth -— Grab. -
l’otal Lead. &g/l ....... . .._...... .._ 30.0 .__. llmonth Grab.
pH. standard units (SU5) .... . _.. _._.. . . . See Part l.A.1
Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity_..._.._.. . See Part V Grab.
‘
Monitonng for this parameter is required only when contamination results from loaded fuel.
An LCro of 100% or loss in a test of
96 hours duration or less will constitute
a violation of FAC (July 11, 1993) § 62—
4.244(3)(a) and the terms of this permit.
The testing for this requirement must
conform with Part V of this permit.
The pennittee shall comply with the
same pH requirements for this Part LA..2
as in Part I.A.1.
The pH shall be monitored once every
month by grab sample. or continuously
with a recorder. (See Item I.B.4). In
accordance with FAC §62—302.500(1)(a-
c), the discharge shall at all times be free
from floating solids, visible foam.
turbidity, or visible oil in such amounts
as to form nuisances on surface waters.
Samples taken in compliance with the
monitoring requirements specified
above shall be taken at the following
location(s): nearest accessible point after
final treatment but prior to actual
discharge or muting with the receiving
waters.
A. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
Requirements
3. During the period beginning on the
effective date of the permit and lasting
through the term of this permit. the
perinittee is authorized to discharge
produced groundwater from any
noncontaminated site activity which
discharges by a point source to waters
of the United States, only if the reported
values for the parameters listed below
donotexceedanyofthescreenlng
-------
65048
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 241 / Friday, December 16, 1994 / Notices
values below. Before discharge of
produced groundwater can occur from
such sites, analytical tests on samples of
the untreated proposed discharge water
shall be performed to determine if
contamination exists from other sources.
The following are the minimum
reporting requirements for all produced
groundwater dischargers which have
acceptable screening value results as
described be!ow
The effluent shall be sampled at the
final effluent within thirty (30) days
after commencement of discharge and
once avery six months for the life of the
project to maintain continued coverage
under this general permit. The effluent
shall be sampled for the parameters
listed below and the analytical results
obtained shall be submitted to EPA at
the address given in Part IDA.
Parameter
Daily maxirmim
Total Organic Cathon .........
Report. majL
Report,stand-
aid units
...... ... . ..... ..
Total Recoverable Mercury.
Report. ugh.
Total Recoverable Cad-
Report, iglt.
irsum.
Total Recoverable Copper..
Report. ugh.
Total Recoverable Lead .....
Report, vgA.
Total Recoverable Zinc ._
Total Recoverable Ctwo-
Report.
Report, igfl.
mum (Hex.).
Bemane ——
Nap l ithalene ........__
Report. ugh.
Report. ighI.
Reported analytical test results for the
parameters listed above exceeding any
of the screening values listed below
shall be considered an Indication of
contamination from sources other than
petroleum fuels:
Indicator if ths-
charge o into
Parameter
F SII
Irnnewa-
Totalarganic
Cw
1O.OmglI
10.Omghl
pH, SU’s ......_
6.0-8.5
6.5-8.5
Total Recov-
0.012 1164
O.O 25 i’gñ
erable Mer-
cury.
Total Recov-
9.3 ugh
9.3 gfl
arabia Cad-
n’Ium.
Total Recov-
2.9 ,>l
2.9 ghI
erabie Co
per.
Total Recov-
0.03 maJl
5.6 gfl
arabia Lent
Total Recov-
86.0 ugh
86.0 ugfl
amble Zinc.
TotaiReco,-
11.0 ighI
50.Ouighl
erable
civorvum
(Hexavalen .
9.
Benzene........
1.0 14h1
1.Op ig hl
Nephthalene..
100.0 ‘gl
100.0 iqfl
If at any time during discharge. the
effluent exceeds these screening values,
EPA may require the facility to cease
discharge.
U any of the analytical test results.
(except TOC, benzene or naphthalene),
exceed the above screening values,
discharge is not authorized by this
permit. See paragraph LA.(3)(b) for
further guidance.
For excessive beazene or naphthaiene
concentrations, see Part A.(3)(a) below.
For initioi excessive TOC values that
may be caused by natumlly.occwrin
high molecular weight organic
compounds. the pemiittee may request
to be exem pted from the TOC
requirement by submitting additional
information with the NO! which
describes the method used to exclude
these naturally ocvrnng compounds.
in accordance with FAC 62-
302.500(1)(a-c), the discharge shall at all
times be free from floating solids, visible
foam, turbidity. or visible oil in such
amounts as to form nuisances on surface
waters.
All discharges must comply with the
following permit requirements:
(a) If analytical tests of Part I.A.3
reveal excessive benzene and
naphihalena concentrations indicative
of contamination from petroleum fuels,
and the discharge will occur for thirty
(30) days or less, the permittee shall
comply only with the applicable
effluent limitations and monitoring
requirements In Part LAi or I.A.2 for
benzene, pH, and/or naphthalene and
total lead. The commencement of the
Part V bioinonitoring program and Put
I.B.3 EPA method 624 and 625 (one time
analysis) is not required for this short-
term activity. One (1) grab sample shall
be analyzed per seven (7) days during
the discharge period, and the total
volume discharged shall be recorded.
For discharges contaminated by
petroleum fuels that last for less than a
week, daily monitoring will be required
for the applicable parameters. Upon
receipt of written EPA notification of
coverage that the NOl request is
complete, these short-term discharges
may commence. Discharge Monitoring
Reports shall be submitted to EPA
within thIrty (30) days after termination
of the discharge.
(hI I ! contamination from sources
other than petroleum contamination
does exist, as indicated by the results of
the analytical tests required by Part 1.
A.3 above, the discharge is not covered
by this general permit. The operator
shall apply for an individual NPDES
permit at least one hundred and twenty
(120) days prior to the date a discharge
to waters of the United States is
expected. No discharge is permissible
without an effective NPDES permit.
(c) If analytical tests reveal no
contAmination exists from petroleum
fuels or sources other than petroleum
contamination as a result of the required
analytical screening tests required in
Part 1. A.3, the permittee can commence
discharge immediately and is covered
by this permit without having to submit
an NOt request for coverage to EPA.
Region IV. A short summary of the
proposed activity and copy of these
analytical tests shall be sent to the same
address specified in Part m.A one (1)
week after discharge begins. These
analytical tests shall be kept on site
during discharge and made available to
EPA, if requested. Additionally. no
Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR)
forms are required to be submitted to
EPA. Region IV.
B. Other Requirements
1. Any more frequent effluent
discharge monitonog required by the
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FOEP) for the parameters
limited in this permit, or different
parameters, shall be reported to the
Permit Issuing Authority in accordance
with the requirements of Part Ill of this
permit.
2. Effluent limitations for combining
contaminated groundwater pumped to
above-ground storage tanks with
contaminated groundwater from the
site’s recovery wells: The permittee
shall notify FDEP of any intent to
combine contaminated groundwater
pumped to above-ground storage tanks
with contaminated groundwater from
the recovery well. Approval of this
combined effluent discharge by FDEP
will constitute approval to apply for
coverage under this permit.
3. Within sixty (60) days of the
effective date of this permit or startup of
dlsrharge the permittee shall also
submit the results of the following
analyses. These analyses shall be
performed on a representative sample of
the groundwater effluent discharge.
taken after final treatment
Required analyses (one time only):
a. EPA Method 625—Acid and basal
neutral extractable organics
b. EPA Method 624—Purgeable
Organics
If such analyses required in Past 3.3
above reveal toxic pollutants other than
those regulated in Part l.A. or
subsequent Whole Effluent Toxicity
(WET) tests reveal an LC 10 of 100% or
less In a test of 96 hours duration or
less, coverage under this general permil
will be reviewed for termination by EPA
Region IV Enforcement Section.
-------
Federal Regi .r / Vol. 59. No. 241 / Friday. December 16. 1994 1 Notices
4. If the pH is monitored
continuously, the pH values shall not
deviate outaide the required range more
than 1% of the timeinany calendar
month: and no individual excursion
shall e,rrsed 60 minutes. An
‘excursion” is an unintentional and
temporary incident in which the pH
value of discharge wastewater exceeds
the range set forth in this permit
C. Test Pru-icihu
1. In performing the analysis for the
dissolved constituents in the surface
water and groundwater, the permittee
shall use the gniilpiines recommended
and described in FAC Sections 62-
770.600(8fla-dJ of the Petroleum
Contamination Cleanup Criteria (PCCC1,
amended February 20. 1990. or the most
current edition.
2. lIthe petroleum contamination is
From a petroleum fuel in which the
source of coat.rnination has not been
identified, the groundwater shall be
analyzed (using the recommended
methods) for the following parameters
as described in PAC Section
62.770.600(8)(c)1,, of the PCCC.
amended February 20. 1990. or the most
current edition:
,iLead
b Priority Polhdanz
Volatile Organica.
c. Priority Pollutant
Extractable Organics
d Non-Priority Pollut-
ant Organim (with
CC/MS Peaks g eaier
than 10 ppb).
0. Schedule ofCoinptiance
1. The parmittee shall achieve
compliance with the effluent limitations
specified for discharges in accordance
with the following schedule:
Permittees with Revoked Individual
Permits:
Operational level attained—Upon
Receipt of Notification of Coverage
New Dischargers:
Operational Iev l attained—Upon
Commencement of Discharge
2. No later than fourteen (14) calendar
days after any date identified in the
abo e schedule of compliance the
permittee shall submit either a report of
progress or. In the case of specific
actions being required by identified
dates, a written notice of compliance or
noncornpIian In the latter case, the
- notice shall include the cause of
noncompliance, any remedial actions
u ken, and the probability of meet ing the
• . rh ccheduled requirement
Put U
Standard Conditions for NPDES
Permits
Sedion A. Generci Conditions
1 Duty to Comply
The permittee must comply with all
condi ons of this permit. Any permit
noncomplu ni ’ ’ constitutes a violation
of the Clean Water Act and is grounds
for enforcement action: br pennit
termination, revocation and reissuance.
or modification: or for denial of a permit
renewal application.
2. Penalties for Violations of Permit
Conditions
Any person who violates a permit
condition is subject to a civil penalty
not to exceed 325.000 per day of such
violation. Any person who willfully or
negligently violates permit conditions is
subject to a fine of up to 350.000 per day
of violation, or by imprisonment for not
more than 1 year. or both. Any person
who knowingly violates permit
conditions is subject to criminal
penalties of 35.000 to 50.000 per day of
violation, or Imprisonment for not more
than 3 years. or both. Also, any person
who violates a permit condition way be
assessed an administrative penalty not
to exceed 510.000 per violation with the
maximum not to exceed $125,000. IRe!:
FR 122.41(a)).
3. Duty to Mitigate
The peinnuee shall take all
reasonable steps to minimize or prevent
any discharge in violation of this peroul
which has a reasonable likelihood of
adversely affecting human health or the
environment.
4. Duty to Reapply
Where EPA is the Permit Issuing
Authority (PIA), the terms and
conditions of this permit are
automatically continued in accordance
with 40 CFR 122.6. only where the
permittee has submitted a timely and
complete Notice of Intent 180 days prior
to expiration of this permit. and (he PIA
is unable through no fault of the
permittee to issue a new permit before
the expiration date
S Permit Modification
After notice and opportunity ford
hearing, this permit way be modified.
terminated, or revoked for cause (as
described in 40 CFR 122.62 et seq)
including, but not limited to. the
following’
a. Violation of any terms or conditions
of this pertr.it:
b. Obtaining this permit by
misrepresentation or failure to disclose
fully all relevant facts;
c. A change many rnniiitions that
requires either temporary interruption
or elimination of the permitted
discharge or
d. Information newly acquired by the
Agency indicating the discharge poses a
threat to human health or welfare.
If the permittee believes that any pest
or planned autivity would be cause for
modification or revocation and
reissuance under 40 C ’R 122,62. the
permittee must report such information
to the Permit Issuing Authority The
submittal of a new application may be
required of the permittee. The filing of
a request by the permittee for a permit
modification, revocation and reissuance.
or termination, or a notification of
planned changes or anticipated
noncompliance, does riot stay any
permit condition.
6. Toxic Pollutants
Notwithstanding Paragraph A-4.
above, if a tosic effluent standard or
prohibition (including any schedule øf
compliance specified in such effluent
standard or prohibition) Is established
under Section 307(a) of the Act for a
toxic pollutant which is present ih the
discharge and such standard or
prohibition Is more stringent than any
limitation for such pollutant in this
permit, this permit shall be modified or
revoked and reissued to conform to the
toxic effluent standard or prohibition
and the permittee so notified.
7 Civil and Criminal Liability
Except as provided in pemut
conditions on “Bypassing” Section 8.
Paragraph 8—3. nothing in this permit
shall be construed to relieve the
permittee from civil or criminal
penalties for noncompliance
8 Oil and Hazardous Substance
Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve the permittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties to which the permittee is or
may be subject under Section 311 of the
Act
9 State Laws
Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve the permittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties established pursuant to any
applicable State law or regulation under
authority pres ’rved by Section 510 oF
the Act.
(EPA Method 239.2
or Standard
Method 304)
(EPA Method 624)
IEPA Method 625)
(EPA Methods 624
and 6251
-------
65050
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 241 / Friday. December 16, 1994 / Notices
10 Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not
convey any property rights of any sort.
or any exclusive privileges, nor does It
authonze any injury to private property
or any invasion of personal rights, nor
any infringement of Federal. State or
local laws or regulations
ii Severability
The provisions of this permit are
severable, and if any provision of this
permit, or the application of any
provision of this permit to any
circumstance, is held invalid, the -
application of such provision to other
circumstances, and the remainder of
this permit. shall not be affected
thereby
12 Duty to Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the
Perirut Issuing Authority, within a
reasonable time, any information which
the Permit Issuing Authority may
request to determine whether cause
exists for modifying, revoking and
reissuing, or terminating this permit or
to determine compliance with this
permit. The permittee shall also furnish
to the Permit Issuing Authority upon
request. copies of records required to be
kept by this permit
Section B. Operation and Maintenance
of Pollution Controls
I Proper Operation and Maintenance
The permittee shall at all times
properly operate and maintain all
facilities and systems of treatment and
control (and related appurtenances)
which are installed or used by the
perinittee to achieve compliance with
the conditions of this permit Proper
operation and maintenance also
includes adequate laboratory controls
and appropriate quality assurance
procedures. This provision requires the
operation of back-up or auxiliary
Iae litles or t4 iIg , systems which are
installed by a permittee only when the
operation is necessary to achieve
compliance with the conditions of the
permit.
2 Need to Halt or Reduce Not a Defense
It shall not be a defense for a
permittee In an enforcement action that
it would have been necessary to halt or
reduce the permitted activity in order to
maintain compliance with the condition
of this permit.
3 Bypass ‘of Treatment Facilities
a Definitions
(1) “Bypass” means the intentional
diversion of waste streams from any
portion of a treatment facility, which is
not a designed or established operating
mode-for the facility.
(2) “Severe property damage” means
substantial physical damage to property.
damage to the treatment facilities which
causes them to become inoperable, or
substantial and permanent loss of
natural resources which can reasonably
be expected to occur in the absence of
a bypass. Severe property damage does
normean economic loss caused by
delays in production.
b. Bypass Not Exceeding Limitations
The permittee may allow any bypass
to occur which does not cause effluent
limitations to be exceeded, but only if
it also is for essential maintenance to
assure efficient operation. These
bypasses are not subject to the
provisions of Paragraphs c. and d. of
this section.
c Notice
(1) Anticipated bypass. If the
pernilttee knows in advance of the need
for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice,
if possible at least ten .days before the
date of the bypass: including an
evaluation of the anticipated quality and
effect of the bypass.
(2) Unanticipated bypass. The
permittee shall submit notice of an
unanticipated bypass as required in
Section D. Paragraph D-4 (24-hour
notice).
d. Prohibition of Bypass
(1) Bypass is prohibited and the
Permit Issuing Authority may take
enforcerneut action against a permittee
for bypass, unless:’
(a) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent
loss of life, personal injury, or severe
and extensive property damage;
(b) There were no feasible alternatives
to the bypass. such as maintenance of
sufficient reserve holding capacity, the
use of auailiary treatment facilities,
retention of untreated wastes, waste
hauling. or maintenance during normal
periods of equipment downtime. This
condition is not satisfied if adequate
beck-up equipment should have been
Installed in the exercise of reasonable
engineering judgment to prevent a
bypass which occurred during normal
periods of equipment downtime or
preventive maintenance: and
(c) The perinittee submitted notices as
required under Paragraph c. of this
section.
(2) The Permit Issuing Authority may.
within its authority. approve an
anticipated bypass. after considering Its
adverse effects. if the Permit Issuing
Authority determines that it will meet
the three conditions listed above in
Paragraph d.(1) of this section.
4. Upsets
“Upset” means an exceptional
incident in which there is unintentional
and temporary noncompliance with
technology based permit effluent
limitations because of factors beyond
the control of the permittee. An upset
does not include noncompliance to the
extent caused by operational error.
improperly designed treatment
facilities, inadequate treatment
facilities, lack of preventive
maintenance, or careless or improper
operation. An upset constitutes an
affirmative defense to an action brought
for noncompliance with such
technology based permit limitation if
the requirements of 40 CFR 122.41(n)(3)
are met. (Note that this provision does
not apply to water quality
requirements.)
5. Removed Substances -
This permit does not authorize
discharge of solids, sludge. filter
backwash, or other pollutants removed
in the course of treatment or control of
wastewaters to waters of the United
States unless specifically limited in Part
1.
Section C. Monitoring and Records
1. Representative Sampling
Samples and measurements taken as
required herein shall be representative
of the volume and nature of the
monitored discharge. All samples shall
be taken at the monitoring points
specified in this permit and, unless
otherwise specified, before the effluent
joins or is diluted by any other
wastestxeam, body of water, or
substance. Monitoring points shall not
be changed without notification to and
the approval of the Permit Issuing
Authority.
2. Flow Measwements
Appropriate flow measurement
devices and methods consistent with
accepted scientific practices shall be
selected and used to insure the accuracy
and reliability of measurements of the
volume of monitored discharges. The
devices shall be installed, calIbrated and
maintained to insure that the accuracy
of the measurements are consistent with
the accepted capability of that typo of
device. Devices selected shall be
capable of measuring flows with a
maximum deviation of less than ± 10%
from the true discharge rates throughout
the range of expected discharge
volumes. Guidance in selection,
installation, calibration and operation of
acceptable flow measurement devices
can be obtained from the following
references:
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 241 / Friday, December 16. 1994 / Notices
65051
(1) “A Guide of Methods and
Standards for the Measurement of Water
Flow”. U.S. Department of Commerce.
National Bureau of Standards, NBS
Special Publication 421. May 1975, 97
pp. (Available from the U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Washington. D.C. 20402. Order by SD
catalog No. C13.10:421.)
(2) “Water Measurement Manual”.
U.S. Department of Interior. Bureau of
Reclamation. Second Edition. Revised
Reprint, 1974, 327 pp. (Available from
the U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402. Order by
catalog No. 127.19/2:W29/2, Stock No.
S/N 24003—0027.)
(3) “Flow Measurement in Open
Channels and Closed Conduits”, U.S.
Department of Commerce, National
Bureau of Standards. NBS Specal
Publication 484, October 1977,982 pp.
(Available in paper copy or microfiche
from National Technical Information
Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA 22151.
Order by NTIS No. P9—273 535!5ST.)
(4) “NPDES Compliance Flow
Measurement Manual”. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Office of Water Enforcement,
Publication MCD— ? ?, September 1981,
135 Pp. (Available from the General
Services Administration (BBRC),
Centralized Mailing Lists Services,
Building 41. Denver Federal Center.
Denver, CO 00225.)
3. Monitoring Procedures
Monitoring must be conducted
according to test procedures approved
under 40 CFR Part 138, unless other test
procedures have been specified in this
permit.
4. Penalties for Tampering
The Clean Water Act provides that
any person who falsifies, tampers with.
or knowingly renders inaccurate, any
monitoring device or method required
to be maintained under this permit
shall, upon conviction, be p ” 4 ’ 1 ”’d by
a fine of not more than $10,000 per
violation, or by imprisonment for not
more than 2 years per violation, or by
both.
5 Retention of Records
The permittee shall retain records of
all monitoring information, including
all calibration and maintenance records
and all original strip chart recordings for
continuous monitoring instrumentation,
copies of all reports required by this
permit, and records of all date used to
:omplete the application for this permit.
for a period of at least 3 years from the
date of the sample, measurement, report
or application. This period may be
extended by the Permit Issuing
Authority at any time.
6. Record Contents
Records of monitoring information
shall include:
a. The date, exact place. and time of
sampling or measurements;
b. The individual(s) who performed
the sampling or measurements:
c. The date(s) analyses were
performed;
d. The individual(s) who performed
the analyses; -
a. The analytical techniques or
methods used; and
f. The results of such analyses.
7. Inspection and Entiy
The perrnittee shall allow the Permit
Issuing Authority, or an authorized
representative, upon the presentation of
credentials and other documents as may
be required by law, to:
a. Enter upon the permittee’s premises
where a regulated facility or activity is
located or conducted, or where records
must be kept under the conditions of
this permit;
b. Have access to and copy. at
reasonable times, any records that must
be kept under the conditions of this
permit:
c. Inspect at reasonable time any
facilities, equipment (including
monitoring and control equipment),
practices, or operations regulated or-
required under this permit; and
d. Sample or monitor at reasonable
times, for the purposes of assuring
permit compliance or as otherwise
authorized by the Clean Water Act, any
substances or parameters at any
location.
Section D. Reporting Requirements
I. Change in Discharge
The permittee shall give notice to the
Permit Issuing Authority as soon as
possible of any planned physical
alterations or additions to the permitted
facility. Notice is required only when:
a. The alteration or addition to a
permitted facility may meet one of the
criteria for deter iining whether a
facility is a new source: or
b. The alteration or addition could
significantly change the nature or
increase the quantity of pollutants
discharged. This notification applies to
pollutants which are subject neither to
effluent limitations in the permit, nor to
notificatien requirements under Section
D, Paragraph D—10(a).
2. Anticipated Noncomplianca
The perinittee shall give advance
notice to the Permit Issuing Authority of
any planned change in the permitted
facility or activity which may result in
noncompliance with permit
requirements. Any maintenance or
facilities, which might necessitate
unavoidable interruption of operation
and degradation of effluent quality.
shall be scheduled during noncritical
water quality periods and carried out in
a manner approved by the Permit
Issuing Authority.
3. Transfer of Ownership or Control
A permit may be automatically
transferred to another party if:
a. The permittee notifies the Permit
Issuing Authority of the proposed
transfer at least 30 days in advai ce of
the proposed transfer date;
b. The notice includes a written
agreement between the existing and new
permittees contpining a specific date for
transfer of permit responsibility,
coverage, and liability between them;
and
c. The Permit Issuing Authority does
not notify the existing permittee of his
or her intent to modify or revoke and
reissue the permit. If this notice is not
received, the transfer is effective on the
date specified In the agreement
mentioned in paragraph b.
4. Monitoring Reports
See Part II I of this permit.
5. Additional Monitoring by the
Permittee
If the permittee monitors any
pollutant more frequently than required
by this permit. using test procedures
approved under 40 CFR 136 or as
specified in this permit. the results of
this monitoring shall be included in the
calculation and reporting of the data
submitted in the Discharge Monitoring
Report (DMR). Such increased
frequency shall also be indicated.
6. Averaging of Measurements
Calculations for limitations which -
require averaging of measurements shall
utilize an arithmetic mean unless
otherwise specified by the Permit
Issuing Authority in the permit.
7. Compliance Schedules
Reports of compliance or
noncompliance with, or any progress
reports on, interim and final
requirements contained in any
compliance schedule of this permit
shall be submitted no later than 14 days
following each schedule date. Any
reports of noncompliance shall include
the cause of noncompliance, any
remedial actions taken, and the
probability of meeting the next
scheduled requirement.
-------
O52
Fedased Rger / Vo). 59 No. 241 / Fijaav. December 16, 1994 / Notices
8 Hour epOftiDg
The permittee Shall orally report any
noncompliance which may endanger
health orthe euv ,uwent . within 24
hours from the thna the permittee
becomes aware of the nircuinstances. A
wntten submission shall also be
provided within 5 days of the time the
permiflee becomes aware of the
circumstances. The written submission
shall contain a description of the
noncompliance and its cause, the period
of noncompliance. including exact dates
and times: and if the nw complinnce has
not been the anticipated time
it is expected to .-uutiude, and steps
taken c i planned to reduce. eliminate.
and prevent reoccunence of the
noncompliance The Permit Issuing
Authoiity may verbally waive the
written report, on a cese-by-case basis.
when the oral report is made. The
following violations shall be included in
the 24 hour report when they might
endanger health or the environment:
a. An unanticipated bypass which
exceeds any effluent limitation in the
permiL
b. Any upsot which exceeds any
effluent lüuitatioa in the pernut.
9 Other Noncompliance -
The perniittee shall report in narrative
form, all lnit nr of nrrnconrplis
riot previously reported under Section
D. Paragraphs 0-2.0-4,0-7. and 0-8
at the time monitoring reports are
submitted. The reports eMil the
information listed in Paragraph D-&
10. Changes in Discharges of Toxic
Substances
The permute. shall notify the Permit
Issuing Authority as seen as it lrnows of
has reason to b&ieve:
a. That any activity has ounaned or
will occur which would result in the
discharge, on a routine or frequent basis.
of any (mdc substance(s) (listed at 40
Q ’R 1 . Appendix D, Tshle U and UI)
which is not limited in the permit. if
that discharge will euseed the highest .f
the following “notificetien levels”:
(liOn. hundred per liter
(100 ugh): or
(2) Two hundred mh rueiuws per liter
(200 ugh) for acrolein and essylonititle:
fiv, hundred microgrema per liter (500
ugh) for 2. 4.dirntrophmed and kw 2-
ascthyl.4. fi-dinitrophenol; and one
milligram per liter (1 iugll) for
antimony.
b. That any activity lies occurred or
will occur which would mm ii i in any
discharge. on a non-routine or
infrequent basis, eta toxrc pollutant
(listed at 40 G ’R 122. Appendix 0.
Table II and III) which is not limited in
the permit. if that disth.g. will -u - ’
the highest of the following
“notification levels”:
(ii Five hundred micrograms per liter
(500 ugll) or
(2) One milligram per liter(i mg/I) for
antimony.
II. Si,gnotwyRequi ement.s
All applications. reports, or
information submitted to the Permit
Issuing Authority shall be signed and
fiet
a. All permit applications Shall be
signed as foiiowm
(1) For a corporation: by a respnwci L .
corporate officer. Far the purpose of this
Section. a responsible corporate officer
means:
It) a president. secretary, treasurer or
vice president of the corporation in
charge eta principal business function.
or any other person who p.ifuiuis
similar policy—or decisioo-makmg
functions for thecorporation, or(2) the
manager of one or more manufacturing
production or operating facilities
employing mote than 250 persons or
having gross annual sales or
expenditures exceeding $25 million (in
second quarter 1980 dollars). if
authority to sign documents has been
assigned or delegated to the manager in
accordance with procedures.
(2) For a partnership or sole
proprietosshipr by a general partner or
the proprietor. respectively: or
(31 Fore mwildpallty, State, Federal.
or other public agency by either a
principal executive officer or ranking
elected official.
b. All serts required by the permit
and other mionnation requested by the
Permit Issuing Authority shall be signed
by a described above or by a
duly authorized representative of that
person. A person Is a duly authorized
representative only it
(liThe authorization Is made in
writing by a person described above:
(2) The authorization spemlies either
an individual or a position having
respi .i ith Jity for the overall operation
of the regulated facility or activity, such
as the position of plant reanagert
operator of a well or a well field,
superintendent, position of equivalent
responsibility, or an individual or
position having overall responsibility
for esvlimunental matters for the
company. (A duly authorized
representative mey thus be either a
earned individual or any individual
occupying a named ponition.); and
(3) The written authorization is
submitted to the Permit Issuing
Authority.
C. Certification. Any person signing a
document under paragraphs (a) or (b) of
this section shall make the following
certification:
“1 certify nnder penaLty of law that
this dacunaeni end all atta’h a1 were
prepared under the direction or
supervision in accordance with a system
designed to assure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evaluate
the information submitted. Based on my
inqutry of the p on or persons who
nienage the system, or those persons
directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted
is. to the best of my knowledge and
belief, true. accurate, and complete. 1 am
aware that there are significant penalties
for submitting false inlormazion.
including the possibility of fine and
imprisonment for knowing violations.”
12. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be
confidential under 40 CFR Past 2, alt
reports prepared in accordance with the
terms of this permit shall be available
for public inspection at the offices of the
Permit Issuing Authority. As required
by the Act, permit applications. pemirts
and effluent data shall not be
considered confidential.
13. PeirnIti c far FaLsaficolion c Reports
The Clean Waxer Act provides that
any person who knowingly makes any
false statement. representation, or
certification in any . .. .arl or other
document submitted or required to be
maintained under this permit, including
monitoring reports or repoTts of
compliance or nonconipiinice shall.
upon conviction, be punished by a fine
of not more dmn 310.000 per violation.
orby imprisonment furnot mote than
2 years per violation, or by both.
Section E. Definitions
1. Permit ‘ uLng Authority
The Regional Administrator of ‘EPA
Region IV or his designee. unless at
some time in the future the State
receives the authority to administer the
NPDES program end assumes
jurisdiction over the permit: at which
time, the Director of the State program
receiving authorization becomes the
issuing authority.
2. Act
“Act’ means the Clean Water Act
(formerly referred to as the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act) Public Law
92—500, as amended by Public Laws 95—
217. 95—575.95-480. 97—117. and
Public Law 100-4.33 U.S.C 1251 et
seq.
3. Concentration Measurements
a. The “average monthly
concentration”, is the sum of the
-------
Federal_Register / VoL 59. No . 241 / Friday December 16, -1994 / Notices
65053
concentrations of all daily discharges
ampled and/or measured during a
calendar month on which daily
lischarges are sampled and measured.
divided by the number of daily
discharges sampled and/or measured
during such month (arithmetic mean of
the daily concentration values). The
daily concentration value is equal to the
concentration of a composite sample or
‘n the case of grab samples is the
wthmetic mean (weighted by flow
value) of all the samples collected
during the calendar day.
b. The “maximum daily
concentration”, is the concentration of a
pollutant discharge during a calendar
day. It is identified as “Daily
Maximum” under “Other Unuts” in
Part I of the permit and the highest such
value recorded during the reporting
period is reported under the
“Maximum” column under “Quality”
on the DMR.
4. Other Measurements
a. The effluent flow expressed as
MCD is the 24 hour average flow
averaged monthly. It is the arithmetic
mean of the total daily flows recorded
during the calendar month. Where
monitoring requirements for flow are
pecifled in Part I of the permit the flow
te values are reported in the
“Average” column under “Quantity” on
the DMR.
b. An “Instantaneous flow
measurement” is a measure of flow
taken at the time of sampling, when
both the sample and flow will be
representative of the total discharge.
c. Where monitoring requirements for
pH or dissolved oxygen are specified in
Part I of the permit. the values are
generally reported in the “Quality or
Concentration” column on the DMR
5. Types of Samples
a. Crab Sample: A “grab sample” is a
single influent or effluent portion which
is not a composite sample. The
sample(s) shall be collected at the
period(s) most representative of the total
diu - hznge,
6 Coiendar Day
A calendar day is defined as the
period from midnight of one day until
midnight of the next day. However, for
purposes of this permit. any consecutive
24-hour period that reasonably -
represents the calendar day may be used
for sampling.
Hazardous Substance
A hazardous substance means any
subqan designated under 40 CFR Part
‘16 pursuant to Section 311 of the Clean
Water Act.
8. Toxic Pollutant
A toxic pollutant is any pollutant
listed as toxic lander Section 307(allhl of
the Clean Water Act.
Section F. Application Requirements
a, For expired individual NPDES
permits. dischargers desiring coverage
under this general permit are required to
submit a notice of intent (NO!) to the
Permit Issuing Authority The NO! shall
include (1) the name and address of the
person that the permit will be issued to
(2) the name, and address of the
operation, including county location, (3)
the applicable individual NPDES
number(s). (4) the identification of any
new discharge location not contained in
the expired permit. (5) evidence that the
operation has obtained approval of a
Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Order from
the F’DEP, (6) a map showing the facility
and discharge location (including
latitude and longitude). (7) the name of
the receiving water, and (8) for
discharges lasting over one (1) year a
pollution prevention plan. (See Part
IV.2) Operators having several
individual permits are encouraged to
consolidate requests for coverage into
one NO! for all individual permits. The
previous submission of the proper forms
in the renewal application does not
relieve the permittee desiring coverage
under the general permit of the
requirement to file a NO!.
b. All facilities continued by the
previous general permit. will be
required to submit a NO! requesting
continued coverage under the reissued
general permit by (insert date 60
calendar days after the date of
publication in the Federal Registerl
The NO! shall contain the same.
information specified in paragraph a
above.
c. Dlschar ers with current individual
NPDES permits that desire coverage
under this general permit are required to
file an NOl to the Permit Issuing
Authority at least thirty (30) days prior
to expiration of their current permit(s).
The NO! shall contain the same
Information specified in paragraph a
above. Permittees desiring to renew
their individual permit are required to
submit the appropriate application
forms at least 180 days before expiration
of their individual permit.
d. Dischargers who have not
previously obtained an Individual
NPDES permit are required to submit to
EPA the FDEP approval order letter
approving the site RAP. The RAP
approval order shall be attached to an
NOl to be covered by the general permit
and shall contain the san te Information
specified in paragraph (a) above. The
application for coverage under the
general.permit must be made at least
fourteen (14) days before the discharge
is to commence.
e. Dischargers seeking coverage under
Part I A.3.a. will be required to submit’
to EPA the date the discharge is
expected to cease. results of analytical
data and the same information in
paragraph a above, except items (3), (4).
(5) and (8). Notification of covetage to
discharge will be upon receipt of EPA’s
short-term coverage letter
f. Notification of coverage will be
given by the Permit Issuing Authority by
certified mail to the permittee (except
for short-term pump tests, 8-hours in
duration or less). for dlschargers seeking
coverage under Part I Sections A.1 and
A.2. with the issuance date for each
facility being the effective date of
- coverage by the Permit Issuing
Authority
Short-term pump tests, shall be
covered automatically once the
permittee receives acceptable
groundwater screening values, and the
perinittee will be responsible meeting
the requirements of Parts L.A. I or A.2.
The DMR’s for these urnp tests shall be
submitted to within thirty (30) days
after discharge ceases.
g. Dischargers meeting the conditions
set forth in Part I A,3.c. are not required
to submit an detailed NO! as outlined
atove, but mum submit a copy of the
analytical tests and a summary of the
proposed activity one (1) week after
discharge begins. These dischargers are
covered upon receipt of the data, unless
notified otherwise by EPA.
h. The coverage of the permit shall
expire on December 6, 1999.
i, In accordance with 40 CFR
122.28(a)(2) permittees who are covered
by this general permit who seek to be
continued under this general permit,
shall submit an complete NO! in
accordance with paragraph a, to EPA
180 days before the expiration of this
permit.
Section G. Additional General Permit
Conditions
I The Permit Issuing Authority may
require any person authorized by this
permit to apply for and obtain an
individual NPDES permit when:
a. The discharge(s) is a significant
contributor of pollution;
b. The discharger Is not in compliance
with the conditions of this permit:
c. A change has occurred in the
availability of the demonstrated
technology of practices for the control or
abatement of pollutants applicable to
the point sources:
-------
65054
yad aj Reer I Vol 59, No. 241 I Friday. December 16. 1994 1 Notices
d. Effluent Ii,nit guidelines are
promulgated for point soiwriie covered
by this p it
e. A Water Quality Management Plan
. r .uw iiiang y iir it nI. applimbla to
such point sanem is apenovad or
f. The point sourcalsl covered by this
permit no longeri
(1) Involve the same or substantially
similar types of operations;
(2) Discharge the same types of
wastas
(3) Require the same effluent
limitations or operating conditions:
(4) Require the same orsimular
manitonoç and
(5) in the opinion of the RA.aie more
appsopnstely oontrolled under an
individnal permit than under a geneini
permit. The Regi anal Adnvrns*intor
(RA) amy require any operator
authorized by this permit to apply for an
individual NPI)ES peimfl only if the
operator has been notified in writing
that a permit appthmtion required.
2. Any operator authorized to
discharge by this permit amy request to
be excluded from the oav ge of this
general permit by applying far an
individual permit. The operator shall
submit an application together with tire
reasons suppor ng the request to the
RA.
3. When an I ndividual I’WDES permit
ls lomed toan operator otherwise
subject to this general permit, the
appli illty of this permit to the owner
or — or isarrttv i Ily terminated
on the affective data of the individual
ew .lit1 l m coverage
under this general pi. .mui solely because
it already has an individual permit may
request that its Individual permit be
revoked, and that ii be covered by this
general permit Upon v tion of the
individual permit, this general permit
shall apoly to the source.
5. A petroleum cantsatlon
recovery operati on may he excluded
from this general permit if It
discharges to receiving wdtw that ie
classified as “Special Protection.
Outstanding Flszlda Waters,
Outstanding National Resowcs Wasers
as set faith by FAC 62-302.700. dated
April 25.1993.
6. The permittee shall notify the
Permit Issuing Authority within 30 days
after the permanent torminalion of
discharge from their facility. This letter
shall include the Site
H àabilibition n ,l ua Order
(SRCO) bum Florida Bureau of Waste
Cleanup which , w , i totes final action
on the State level Ear completion of
cleanup activities at the alfac*ed site.
After review of the SRCO,EPA will
inactivate coverage of the general
NPDES permit for the facility.
Dischargers covered under this general
permit without RAP approval shall
submit a No Discharge Cartification
Form to EPA. within 30 days after
ceasing discharge.
Part lU
Other Requirements
A. Reporting of Monitoring Results
Monitoring results obtained for each
calendar month shall be summarized
and reported on a OMR Form A No.
3320- I), one DMR for eeth month.
Unless otherwise required in Part V.
these forms shall be submitted after
each calendar quarter and postmarked
no later than the 28th day of the month
following the completed calendar
quarter. (For example, data for January-
March shall be submitted by April 28.)
Calendar quarters are January.Marrh,
April-June. Iuly.September and October-
December. SIgned copies of these and
all other reports required by Section 0
of Part II. Reporting Requirements, and
Part V shall be submitted to the Permit
Issuing Authority at the following
address: U.S. Enviroornasital Protection
Agency. Region IV. Enfonrem nt
Section. Water Permits and Enforcement
Branch. 345 Courdand Street, N.E.,
Atlanta, GA 30365.
If no discharge occurs during the
reporting period, sampling requirements
of this permit do not apply. The
statement “No Discharge” shall be
written on the Dl ’ffi form. I L dunng the
term of this permit. the facility ceases
discharge to surface waters, the Permit
Issuing Authority shall be notified
tw oitiAt iIy upon tion of
discharge.
9. Reopener Clause
This permit shall be modified, or
alternatively revoked and reissued to
comply with any applicable effluent
standard or limitation issued or
approved under Sections 301(bX2XC ).
and (D), 304(b)(2). and 307 (a)(2) of the
Clean Water Act (the Act), if the effluent
standard or limitation so issued or
approved—
1. Contains different conditions or is
otherwise more stringent than any
condition to this permit: or
2, Controls any pollutant net limited
in the permit. ‘The permit as modified or
reissued under this paragraph shall also
contain any other requirements of the
Act then applicable.
Paul IV
Best Man . ..ssd Practiom and
Pollution rt .. , .. .tion Conditiens
Section A. Genesul Conditions
1. BMP Plan
Preparation of a Best Management
Practices (BMP) Plan shall be prepared
in conjunction with development of the
Remedial Amion Plan required by
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (See Part lLF.cj. The
permittee shall maintain the liMP plan
at the facility and shall make the plan
available to the permit issuing authority
upon request. The NPDES Guidance
Document” can be used as a reference
which nnL ’ms technical information
on BMPs and the elements of the BMP
program. The peimittee shall develop
and implement a liMP plan which
prevents, or “ ‘“ “ ‘i.zes the potential for.
the release of pollutants from ancillary
activities. inch ding material storage
areas: plant site runoff: in-plant transfer.
process and material handling areas;
loading and unloading operations, and
sludge and waste disposal areas, to the
waters of the United States through
plant site nmoff spillage or leaks:
sludge or waste disp ” at: or drainage
from raw material storage. The term
pollutants refers to any substance kate
as tone under Section 307 (aMI) of the
Clean Water Act, oil, as defined in
Section 311(aHl)oftheAa,.and
substance listed as hazardous under
Section 311 of the Ad. Copies of the
• NPD 5 Gu dI% , Document” may be
obtained by submitting written requests
tm Director. Water Management
Division. U.S. EPA Region IV. 345
Courtland St. N.E., Atlanta. Georgia
30365.
2. Pollution Prevention Plan
New perrnittees with long term
treatment systems expected to discharge
ene (1) year or mare shall develop a
Pollution evenbc. Pine for the site
and submit it with the MX It shall
contain the following information:
(a) A Narrative of What Caused the
Groundwater Contamination.
(b) Methods currently being deplo ed
at the site to pevent groundwater
c ,, L inatlon from reeccurring.
(C) Other alternative treatment options
which were considered in reducing the
groundwater contaminmion.
( ,d) Explanation of why long term
treatment of discharge to Surfaca Waters
of the United States was chosen as
opposed to:
(1) Reduction-Morutor Phase /—Usin
a combination of techniques to
significantly reduce groundwater
contamination that could be achieved iii
-------
fe esl Ragister / ‘dok 53, Na 2*i I ’ Friday. Deonr r 1& 994 I Notices
three mon witkthe
objective oLroas moaiteJ.onIy
status.
(2) Reducti.r..Mondor Ptu’a. II—
Using a combinat n of t iquea.io.
significantly reduwgpoundwa*er
contamination tb.tceid& be achieved in
six (6) montbsurlea&.wtthth.eh, üve
of reaching e merAtnw -oniyatetas..
In an effort tep ...—4 pollution
prevention, the Peama londng . Authority
may issue permits .&h ind.udsor
require poliution y Iian activities..
Part V
Whole Effluent Testing
Progronr. AcueEiesh Lwrgrmgr
As re byPtetlofdes permit .
within 30-days after mIn npnr of
discharge. perznitt dIsthaiging to.
fresh waters. which are sur waters
in which the chtwid. . “ tfon at
the surface is Ion than 1 mlflEgtuins
per liter, shall initiate the seriesoflesta
• described below to svahiatswhofa
effluent tmdcity oflhe diseharga hem
the outfall. It more than one (1). outfalL
exists. separate t wilL be performed.
on each outfall. AEt . ries. _____
procedures. and qualitp
criteria used sballbsinaccoedanca with
Methods for Monci mrgthaAczne
1 ’oxicity of Effl .’. ’f to Fresh” ’ and
brine Organians. Ab60Oi4—90!Q27V.
or the most C” ” edition. The
dilutlon/conirot water used. w Ilibe Part V
moderately hard er esA ihed in
• 7, or the
most current 0 ditin _ A , ““ ‘d
reference toxicant. quality assistance test
shall be conducted. amcunently with.
each species used in. the sn ü ..iiy taste.
and the results ihmin.dwfth the
discharge monateriszg .. 1 .i.rt (DM&).
Alternatively. if monthly QAI
reference toxicant tests are conducted,
these results must be ib i1Iie with the
DMR.
1. a. The peimittee shall 96-
hour acute static .. ,..J imil-
concentration t... ity s g the
daphnid (Ceziodaphnia-.dubio) and the
fathead minnow Ic. . ._,&. .L . ...peem1as).
All tests shall becon .’l on one
sample of 100% final 1 ’ ’ All teats
shall be coniIucteitonaol(0%
and the following dilution
concentrations at sm imum 100.0%.
50.0%, 25.0%, IZS%.asdfl.25%.
b. If controlsin Hsy— .-..eitem% l’oa
either apeces many . the test(s) fin
that species ( 1e.rIit th.g the cenirel) shalL
be repeated. test wIftbe dered.
‘did only It coáoLi .s 1iiy does not
:ced 1.0% far thesnIprrt.t
2. The tn dc1ty t eii ed above
shall be conducted sway month
until three (3) valid .rmIMy tests have.
been completed, arid orion every year
thereafter for the duration at the permit.
imlees notified cthezwtea by the ponnit
issuing authotity ‘These t are
referred. teen “routine
3. a. If unacceptable acute toxicity (an
LCta of 100% or less in either
test species in any of th. above-
described tests within the specified
time) is found in a “rcutuie” test. the
permittee shall conduct two additional
acute toxicity tests in the seme manner
as the “routine test on the specie(sJ
Indicating unacceptable acute toxicity.
For each. ddtiinnaI task the sample
coloequstemenzs.and tes&
acceptability criteria. specified in
Section 1 above must be met for the test
to be considered valid. The first test
shall begin withiAr two weeheofth,end
of the “routine” tests and shall be
conducted weekly’ thereafter until two
additional, valid tests are iiirp{ete&.
Thesifditloi,aF tests will be used’ re
determine if the’ toxicity in the’
“rottine” tegt is still present.
b. Results from additional teats.
required due to unacceptableacute
taxicityin thw’ruuIt1L ” tmds)t must be
an the Discharge Menitoruig
Report (DMR) Fern fbrtlie wUutii 1ff
which the test was begtm Such tess
resulkmustbesubmftfedwithin45
days of completion of the-second
additional, valid test.
Whale Effluent Toxicity Testing
Pmgranr. Acnre-Saft water Languag
As. tequired by Part I of this pernut.
within 30-days after cosirnenosiamit of
discharge. pemuttees discharging to
Tn r e watem. which ate surfac. waters
in which the chloride concanri’ation at
the surface is eater than or equal to
1580 milligrams per liter, shall’ initiate
the series of tests described below to
evaluate whole effluent tatocity of the
discharge front the outfall. I! more than
one (1) outfall exists. separate tests will
be performed on each outfall. All test
species, procedures and qualaay
assurance criteria used shall be in
accordance with Methods far Measuring
the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms.
A/600/4-9Ob027F. arthe crest current
-edition. The dilutionlcontrol water and
effluent.used.w0Lbe adjusted to.a
salinity of 20 parts per thousand using
afiei*T sea salts as described in ‘M
60014—90 1027F ’. Section 7 (or the most
current edition). A standard refoici ce
toidcant quality assurance test shall be
conducted conc*nrenth with each
species used in the toxicity rests arid the
results submitted with the discharge
monitoring report (0Mm. Alternut;v Iy.
if monthl r QAI nderonon t s
tests are conducted, these results must
be submitted with’ the’DMR
l.a. The permiuee shall eanthict0fl
hour acute static-renewal multi-
concentration toxicity teats using the
mysid shrimp (M ’s1depsb be/tiol and’
the inland silverside(Menidla
be yllind). All testsshalLbeconducted ’
on one grab sample-of 1 0%. final
effluent. All tests shall’ be conducted’ at
a control (0%) and the following,
dilution, concentrations at a minimum.
100.0%, 50.0%. 2&0%,.12.5%, and
6.25%.
b. If control mortality ’ e” m%. for
either species in’ any test.. ths test(4 for
that special (including the eene’oI) ah ll
be repeated. A testwillbeconsidered
valid only if’ control mortality does nor
exceed 10% for either
2. The toxicity tests. specified abone
shall be conducted once every month.
witil ’th,ee (3) valid monthly taste have
been completed, and once every you
thereafter for the duration althe permit.
unless.nozifled otherwise by the penis
issuing authority. Those. toes am
referred. as ‘muilne’tt .
3. a. if unacceptable acute-toxicity Can
LCta of 100% o,fessocarrsineither
test species in any of the above-
described taste within, the specified
timel i&fozindin a ,”mutine ’ test, the
pernuttee shall conduct two additional
acute to,amty tests in the same manner
as the “routine” test on the specie(s)’
indicating unacceptable taxi city. For
each additional test, the sample
collection requirements and test
acceptability criteria specified in
Section 1 above must be met for the tust
to be considered valid. The first test
shall begin within twe- weeks of the end
of the “routine” tests, and’ shall be
conducted weekly thereafter until two
additional. valid tests are completed.
The additional-tests will be used..to
determine if the toxicity fbund in the
“routine” test is still present..
b. Results from additional teats.
required due to unacceptable acute
toxicity in the “routine” test( ), must’ be
reported on the Discharge Monitoring’
Report (IiJMR) Form for the month in
which the rest wee begun. Such test
results must be submltted’wlthln 45
days of completionof the second
addltiânal, valid test.
(FR Doc. 94—30952.PlIbd ’ 12—15-41: 8:46 me l
aces atso
-------
63792
Federal Register / VoL 59, No. 236 / Friday, December 9. 1994 I Notices
ElS No. 9404%, DRAFT US, FRC,I ff,
NR
Seco River Basin Hydropower
Development. (FERCProjeot Noe. 2528.
2527. 2194. 2531. 2529,2530. and
11365. Licenses and Relicenses, ?v and
NH. Due: January 23. 1995. Contact:
Rich McCuire (202) 219-3094.
US No. 940497, DRAFT US, COE, GA,
SC
Savannah Harbor Navigation Project.
Operation and Maintenance. Long Term
Management Strategy Study. Chatham
County, GA and Jasper County. SC, Due:
January 23, 1995, Contact: William
Bailey (912) 652—5781.
US No.940498, DRAFT SUPPLU (E 4T,
FRC,NB
Kingsley Dam Project (FERC No.
1417) and North Platte/Keystone
Diversion Dam (FERC. No. 1835)
Hydroelectric Project. Additional
Information, Application for Licenses,
Near the Confluence of the NorthlSouth
Plattes. Keith. Lincoln, Garden, Dawson
and Grasper Counties. NB. Due: Jetluary
23. 1995. Contact: Lois D. Cashell (202
(202) 501—7704.
Dated: December 6. 1994.
Richard E. Sandemon.
Director. Office of FedaralAc9Jvities.
IFR Doe. 94—30377 Filed 12—8—94:8:45 ami
coos
(OPPTS -00163; FRL -4925-2J
Biotechnology Science Advisory
Committee; Subcommittee on
Pvemanufacnu. Notification; Review of
Nitrogen Fixing Rhizoblum Meliloti
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of open meeting .
SUMMARY: There will be a 1 .day meeting
open to the public of the Biotechnology
Science Advisory Committee’s
Subcommittee on Commercial Use of
Cenetically-Englneezed Microorganisms
to review Research Seeds’ application
for commercial introduction of a
Rhizobiwn meiiloti strain RMBPC-2
(PMN P—92-403). The committee will
discuss the risk assessment prepared by
the Agency for the commercialization of
this product. The public will be given
an opportunity to corenlenl Members of
the public are requested to contact the
Agency In advance concerning their
desire to comment at the meeting.
DATES: The meeting will be held on
Wednesday, January 4. 1995. starting at
9a.m. and ending at 5p.m.
ADDRESSES The meeting will be held at
the Crystal Gateway Marriott. 1700
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION COSITACY: Ma.
Creavery Lloyd. Biotechnology Science
Advisory Committee (MC-71o1). Omce
of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M SI. SW., Rm. E-627.
Washington. DC 20460. Telephonm
(202) 260-6900. For copies of the risk
alcessment and related materials
contact James Willis. Acting Director.
Environ nental Assistance Division
(7408), Office of Pollution Prevention
and Tonics. Environmental Protection
Agency. Rm. E-643. 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Telephone:
202—554—1404, TDD: 202—554-0551.
These documents also may be accessed
through the Internet at: gopher.epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATiON: Research
Seeds is the successor in interest to
certain genetically modified strains of
Rhizobium which were originally
submitted to EPA for review by
BioTechnica Agriculture International
in 1987. These premanufacture notices
(PMNs) were submitted pursuant to
section 5(a)(1) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA). Rhizobiwn species
form symbiotic relationships with
certain legumes by causing the legumes
to form root nodules within which the
Rhizobium species fix atmospheric
nitrogen. RMBPC-2. symbiotic with
alfalfa, has been modified for enhanced
nitrogen fixation. The PMN strain also
contains a gene for resistance to the
antibiotfcs streptomydn and
spectinomycin for purposes of
identifying RMBPC.2 In the
environment. Attendance by the public
will be limited to available space.
Persons interested in making public
comment or interested in attending
should contact Creaveiy Lloyd at 202-
260—6900. or by FAX to 202—260—0949,
or by Internet to
lloyd.creavery©epamail.epa.gov. no
later than Wednesday. December 28,
1994. A copy of any public comments
should be forwarded to Creavery Lloyd
no later than December 28, 1994.
Dated: December 5. 1994.
Susan IL Weyland.
Assistant Administratorfor Prevention.
Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
IFR Doc. 94—30484 Filed 12—8—94:8:45 aml
SWIG cOOS 5510.6O.F
National PolIu tt Discharge
Elminatlon System (NPOES); Final
General Permit for the Stetes of Pitetne
F s eehusetts, and New Hampshire
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notices of Final NPDES General
Permits—MAG640000, MEG640000.
and NHG640000.
SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator
of Region lie issuing Final National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) General Permit for water
treatment facilities In certain waters of
the States of Maine. Massachusetts, and
New Hampshire. This general NPDES
Permit establishes notice of intent (NOl)
requirements. effluent limitations.
standards, prohibitions and
management practices for facilities with
discharges authorized by the permit.
Owners and/or operators of facilities
discharging effluent from water
treatment facilities will be required to
submit to EPA. Region l.a notice of
intent (NO!) to be covered by the
appropriate general permit within 180
days of the effective data of this permit
and will receive a written notification
from EPA of permit coverage and
authorization to discharge under the
general permit
DATES This general permit shall be
effective on January 9, 1995 and will
expire five years from the effective date
The authorization to discharge shall
become effective upon notification by
EPA that the operator is covered by this
—t.
AODRFSSES: Notices of intent to be
authorized to discharge under these
permits should be sent to: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
NPDB6 Program Operations Section.
P.O. Box 8127. Boston. Massachusetts
02114.
The submittal of other Information
required under these permits or -.
Individual permit applications should
be sent to the above address.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTAC1
Suprokash Sarker. Wastewater
Management Branch. Water
Management Division. W?iOif,
Environmental Protection Agency. I. F.
Kennedy Federal Building. Boston.
Massachusetts 02203. Telephone (617)
565—3573.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
L Introduction
The Regional Mministrator of Region
lie issuing final general permit for
effluent discharges from water treatment
facilities to certain waters of the States
Jefferson Davis Highway. Arlington, VA tFRI. 61*61
22202.
-------
Federal Register , Vol. 59, No. 236/ Friday. December 9. 1994 / Notices
63793
of Maine. Massachusetts, and New
Hampshire. This notice contains two
sets of appendices. Appendix A
timmiirj EPA’s response to major
comments received on the draft general
permits published on July 28. 1994 (59
FR 38465). Appendix B contains the
final general NPDES permits including
Part U. Standard Conditions.
U. Coverage of General Permits
Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act
(the Act) provides that the discharge of
pollutants is unlawful except in
accordance with a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit. Although such permits to date
have generally been issued to individual
discharges. EPA’s regulations authorize
the issuance of “general permits” to
categories of discharges. See 40 CFR
122.28 (48 FR 14146. April 1. 1983).
EPA may issue a single, general permit
to a category of point sources Located
within the same geographic area whose
permits warrant similar pollutant
control measures.
The Director of an NPDES permit
program is authorized to issue a general
permit if there are a number of point
sources operating in a geographic area
that:
1. Involve the same or substantially
similar types of operations:
2. Discharge the same types of wastes:
3. Require the same effluent
limitations or operating conditions;
4. Require the same or similar
monitoring requirements: and
5. In the opinion of the Regional
Administrator, are more appropriately
controlled under a general permit than
under individual permits.
Violations of a condition of a general
permit constitutes a violation of the
Clean Water Act and subjects the
discharger to the penalties in Section
309 of the Act.
Any owner or operator authorized by
a general permit may be excluded from
coverage of a general permit bj applying
for an individual permit. This request
may be made by submitting a NPDES
permit application together with mis
supporting the request no later than 90
days after publication by EPA of the
final general permit in the Federal
Register. The Director may require any
person authorized by a general permit to
apply for and obtain an individual
permit Any interested person may
petition the Director to take this action.
However, individual permits will not be
issued for sources discharging effluent
hem water treatment facility covered by
this general permit unless it can be
clearly demonstrated that inclusion
under the general permit is
inappropriate.
The Director may consider the
issuance of individual permits when:
1. The disrhMge is a significant
contributor of pollution;
2. The discharge is not in compliance
with the terms and conditions of the
general permit:
3. A change has occurred in the
availability of demonstrated technology
or practices for the control or abatement
of pollutants applicable to the point
source:
4. Effluent limitations guidelines are
subsequently promulgated for the point
sources covered by the general permit;
5. A Water Quality Management plan
containing requirements applicable to
such point sources is approved; or
6. Circumstances have changed since
the time of the request to be covered so
that the discharger is no longer
appropriately controlled under the
general permit, or either a temporary or
permanent reduction or elimination of
the authorized discharge is necessary:
In accordance with 40 CFR
l22.28(b)(3fliv). the applicability of the
general permit is automatically
terminated on the effective date of the
individual permit.
Under this general permit. owners
and operators of potable water treatment
plants in Ma aachusetts, Maine and
New Hampshire may be granted
authorization to dis havge process
generated wastewaters into waters of the
respective States as follows:
a. treated presedimentation
underflow
b. treated undarfiow from the
coagulation/settling processes using
aluminum compounds or polymers as
coagulants: and
c. treated filter backwash water from
filters.
This permit shall apply specifically to
operators that have a discharge from a
point source sich as a sludge settling
lagoon or other device whereby
comparable control of suspended solids
is possible.
Authorization under the permit shall
require prior submittal of certain facility
Information. Upon receipt of all
required Information, the permit Issuing
authority may allow or disallow
coverage under the general permit.
Th. following list shows the criteria
which will be used in evaluating
whether or not an individual permit
may be required instead of a general
permit.
1. Evidence on aon’compliance under
previous permit for the operation;
2. Preservation of high quality waters
and fisheries;
3. Facilities with an effluent discharge
flow of over 1.00 MGD maximum daily
for the states of Massachusetts and New
Hampshire and 0.15 MCD ma dmwn
daily for the state of Maine:
4. Production of effluent at the facility
other than using aluminum compound
or polymer as coagulant: and
5. Use of land application as a means
of discharge:
6. For the state of Maine. a minimum
dilution of effluent of 100:1 in the
receiving water at 7Q 10 should be
stipulated.
The similarity of the discharges has
prompted EPA to prepare this draft
general permit for public review and
comment. When issued, this permit wall
enable facilities to maintain compliance
with the Act and will extend
environmental and regulatory controls
to a large number of discharges and -
reduce some permit backlog. The
issuance of this general permit for the
geographic areas described below is
warranted by this similarity of (a)
environmental conditions, (b) State
regulatory requirements applicable to
the discharges and receiving waters, and
Cc) technology employed.
[ a the State of Maine, there are 271
industrial applicants or permittees. It is
estimated that 13 of the industries that
have direct discharges to the waters of
the State are strictly water treatment
facilities.
In the State of New Hampshire. there
are 171 estimated industrial
applications or permittees. It is
estimated that 2 or more of the
industries that have the direct
discharges to the waters of the State are
strictly water treatment facilities.
In the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, there are 651 industrial
applicants or perznittees. It is estimated
that 33 of the industries that have direct
discharges to the waters of the State are
strictly water treatment facilities.
II I. Conditions of the General NPDES
Permit
A. Ceogrnphic Areas
Maine (Permit No. MEC640000)—All
of the dIsrh vges to be authorized by the
general NPDES permit for the State of
Maine from dlschaigers are limited to
Class B.C.SB and SC waters of the State.
except Lakes. The drainage areas must be
more than 10 square miles.
Massachusetts (Permit No.
MAC640000).—.All of the discharges to
be authorized by the general NPDES
permit for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts dischargars are limited to
Class B, ans SB waters as designated in
Massachusetts Water Quality Standards.
314 CMR 4.00 et seq. Discharges into
Class A water needs review and
approval by MADEP.
New Hampshire (Permit No.
NHC640000)—All of the discharges to
-------
63794
Federal Register I VoL 59,No . 236/Friday. December 9, 1994 / Notices
be authorized by the general NPDES
permit for the State of New Hampshire
ditchargers are into all waters of the
State of New Hampshire unless
otherwise resthctad by the State Water
Quality Standards. New Hampshire RSA
485—A:8. (or as revised).
B. Notification by Permittees
Operators of facilities whose
discharge. or discharges. are described
in Part 11 and whose facilities are
located in the w phic areas
described in Part W. A. above may
submit to the Regional Administrator,
Region I. a notine of intent to be covered
by the appropriate general permit
within 180 days of the effective date of
the general permit This written
notification must include the owner’s or
operator’s legal name and address; the
facility name and address; the number
and type of facilities lobe covered, the
facility locatious a topographic map (or
other map lie topographic map is not
available) ind;rDting its facility
locations; the names of the receiving
waters into which discharge will occuz
a determination as to whether or not the
facility discharge will adversely affect a
listed or proposed to be liMed
endangered or threatened species or Its
critical habitat (see Part EJ.
The facilities authorized to discharge
under a final general permit will receive
written notification from EPA. Region I.
with State cunemrence. Failure t&
submit to EPA, Region La notice of
intent to be covered or failure to receive
from EPA written notification of permit
coverage means that the facility is not
authorized to discharge under this
general permit.
C. Effluent limitations
1. Statutor/ Requirements
The Clean Water Act (the Act)
prohibits the dIsr1 *rge of pollutants to
- waters of the United States without a
National Pollutant Discharge
rHmin tion System WDES1 permit
unless such a discharge Is otherwise
authorized by the Act. The NPDES
Permit is the used to
implement technology and water quality
based effluent limitations and other
requirements including monitoring and
reporting The NPDES permit was
developed in aceordance with vanous
statutory and regulatory authorities
established pursuant to the Act. The
regulations governing the EPA NPDES
Permit program are generally found at
40 R parts 122. 124. 125 and 136.
EPA is required to consider
technology and water quality
requirements when developing permit
lImits. 40 CPR part 125 Subpart A sets
the criteria and standards that EPA must
use to determine which technology
based requirements. requirement under
Section 301(b) of the Act and/or
requirements established on a case-by-
case basis under section 402(a)(1) of the
Act, should be included in the permit.
The Clean Water Act requires that all
discharges, at a minimum, must meet
effluent limitations based on the
technological capability of di h igers
to control pollutants in their discharge.
Section 301(b)(l)(A) of the Act requires
the application of Best Practicable
Control Technology Currently Available
(BPT) with the statutory deadline for
compliance being July 1. 1977. unless
otherwise authorized by the Act.
Section 301(b)(2) of the Act requires the
application of Best Conventional
Control Technology (BCT) for
conventional pollutants, and Best
Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT) for non-conventional
and toxic pollutants. The compliance
deadline for BCI’ and BAT being March
31, 1980.
2. Technology.Based Effluent
Limitations
EPA has not promulgated National
Effluent Guidelines for water nearment
facilities. For a category where
Guidelines have been promulgated, the
Issuance of an individual permit for the
discharges would be more appropriate
(See 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3)(l)(C)). - -
Therefore, as provided In section
402(a)(1) of the Act, EPA baa
determined to issue this general permit
utilizing Best Professional Judgement
(BPT) torneet the above stated criteria
for BAT1BCT described in section
304(b) of the Act. Accordingly monthly
average TSS limitation is established
based upon best professional judgement
pursuant to Section 402(a)(1) of the
CWA.
Water Quality Based Effluent
Limitations
Under Section 301(b)(IXC) of the Act
discharges are subject to effluent
limitations based on water quality
standards and to the conditions of State
certification under section 401 of the
Act. Receiving steam requirements are
established according to numerical and
narrative standards adopted under state
and/or federal law for each stream use
classification. The CWA requires that
EPA obtain State certification which
states that all water quality standards
will be satisfied. Regulations governing
State certification are set forth in 40 CFR
§ 124.53 and 124.55.
Section 101(a113) of the Act
specifically prohibits the discharge of
toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. The
States âf Maine, MMmchusetts, and
New Hampshire have similar narrative
criteria in their water quality regulation
(See Maine ‘ ntIs 38. ArtIcle 4—A, sectiom
420 and section 484.4.A.(4);
Ma,-’achuzetts 314 Cvffl 4.05(5)(e); and’
New Hampshire Part Env.Ws
432.02(c)(4 ) that prohibits such
discharges. The permit does cot allow
for the addition of materials or
chemicals in amounts which would
produce a toxic effect to any aquatic life.
The effluent from the water treatment
facility may contain toxic pollutants due
to use of chemicals and chlorine.
However, they do not contain hazardous
pollutants or oil and grease. Therefore,
water quality criteria established For oil
and grease and hazardous pollutants do
not apply to these discharges. Water
Quality Standards and State
certification requirements applicable to
these discharges have been reviewed by
EPA and the limits and testing
requirements for each State are given
below:
Massachusetts: Limits of Max. Daily
TS , Monthly Average and Max Daily
Settleable Solids and pH. Testing
requirements for Chlorine, Aluminum,
LCSO and C-.NOEC.
Maine: Limits of Chlorine Aluminum
and pH. TestIng requirements of LCSO
and C-NOEC.
New Hampshire: Limit of pH. Testing
requirements of Chlorine. Aluminum.
LC5O and C-NOEC.
D. Antidegitidation Provisions
The conditions of the permit reflect
‘the goal of the CWA and EPA to achieve
and maintain water quality standards.
The environmental regulations
pertaining to the State Anti degradation
Policies which protect the State’s
surface waters from falling below Slate
standards for water quality are found in
the following provisioun Maine TItle
38, Article 4—A. Section 464.4.F.;
Massachusetts Water Quality Standards
314 Q 1R 4.04 Antldegradatlon
Provisions: and New Hampshire policy
RSA 485-k,8. V I Part Env-Ws 437.01
and Env-Ws 437.02.
This general permit will not apply to
any new or increased discharge unless
it can be determined that such
discharges will result in insignificant
effects to the receiving waters: This
determination shall be made in
accordance with the appropriate State
Antidegradation Policies.
E. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements’
Effluent limitations and monitoring
requirements are included in the general
permit describing requirements to be
imposed on facilities to be covered.
-------
- Federal RegiMen Vol. 59. No. 2 6 I Friday. December 9, 1994..! Notices :. 63795
p ‘ctles covered by the final general
pa will be required to submit to
Ft. stegion I. and the . . rtate Slate
a. Discharge Monitoring Report
cone ining effluent data on a semi-
annual b -i .
The monitoring requirements have
been established to yield data
representative of the discharge under
authority of Section 308(a) of the Act
and 40 ‘R 122.41(j). 122.44(i) and
122.48. and as certified by the State.
F. Eitdangered Spec.!es
Discharges that may edversely affect.a
listed or proposed to be listed
endangered or threatened species or Its
aitical habitat are not authorized under
this general permit without the written
approval of the Fish and Wildlife
Service end/or the National Marine
Fisheries Service. -
The Fish and Wildlife Service has
indicated that the dwarf wedge mussel
(Aismidonta heterodon). a Federally
listed endangered speores, ocours in a.,
stretch of the Connecticut River burn - -
Lebanon. New Hampshire to
Weathersfleld Bow. Vermont. in the
Ashuelot River In Keen.. New
Hampshire and historicelly from a
number of rivera in Ma, ’ 4 ’usetts, Any
fr ‘whose discharge may adversely
e .he mussel or any ether
threatened or endangered spades or its
habitat Is required to contact the Fish
and Wildlife Service at the following
address in order to make a formal
determination: United States
Department of the Intiriw, Fish and
Wildlife Service. 400 Ralph Pill
Marketplace. 22 Bridge Street. Concord.
New Hampshire 03301-4901.
The NatnTml Marine Fisheries Service
has indicated that the endangered
shortnose sturgeon (Adpenser
brevümstrum) Ii h its certal sections
of the Penobscot, Kennebec and
Androscoggin Rivers In Maine. and the
Mezrmn -l and C” tIcut Rivers in
Massachusetts. Any facility whose
discharge may adversely effect the
sturgeon or any other threatened or
endangered species or Its habitat is
required to contact the national Marine
Fisheries Service at the following
address: United States Department of -
“era. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. National
Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat and
Protected Resowas Division. One -
Blackburn Drive. Gloucester.
Massachusetts 01903-2298.
‘ er Requirements
e remaining conditions of the
permit are based on the NPDES
regulations 40 CFR Parts 122 through
125 and consist primarily of
management requ rements common to Jeopardize thc ntinuid erdstenos of
all permits.. . - any endangered or threatened species or
adversely affect its itica1 habitat. The
IV.StateCertzflCatl oa .U.S.FishandWflAUf Servjceandthe
-.4 _____
SectIon 401 of the C VA provides that p j
no Federal 1ir.. , , i , or permit. including concur this conclusion.
NPDES permits, to conduct any activity
. -tbat may result in any ‘ D. Enviroiitentàl Impact Statement
navigable waters shall be granted until Reqwmnent -.
the State in which the discharge The general permits do not authorize
ori nates certifies that the discharge . the construction of any water resources
will comply with the applicable project or the impoundment of any
provisions of sectIons 301.302,303. water body or have any effect on
306, and 307 of the CWA. The section - historical property. end are not major
401 certification process has been Federal activities needing preparation of
completed far all States covered by any Environmental impact Statement.
today’s general permit. , Therefore, the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act. 18 U.S.C. §51273 etseq..ihe
V. Mmmi •athe Aspe National Historic Preservation Act of
A. Request To Be Covered - 1966.16 U.S.C 55470 at seq., the Fish
A facility Is uct covered by any (if and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16
these general permits until it U.S.C. §5661 .t seq.. and the National
following requirements. FIrst, it must Environmental Policy Act. 33 U.S.C
sendanoticeofintenttoEPAandthe s543 etseq..donotapplytothe
-appropriate State Indie esirg ft meetiihe issuance of this general NPDES permit.
requirements of the permit and wants tO VI. Other Legal Requirements -
be covered. And secnnd, It must be -
notified in writing by EPA that it i - A. Economid liii pact (Executive Order
covered by this general peTmit. - •J 2291 ) . -
Any facility operating under any EPA has reviewed the effect of -
effective individual NPDES permit may Executive Order 12291 on this draft
request that the individual permit be general permit and has determined that
revoked and that coverage under the - it is not a major rule i.,uhir that
general permit granted. as outlined in jo This regulation was submitted
122.28(b)(31(v). UEPA grants - previously to the Office of Management
coveragiunder the general permit. EPA and Budget for review as required by
will so notify the facility and revoke the Executive Order 12291. The Office of
Individual permit. - - Management and Budget has exempted
- Facilities with expire individual this action from the review
permits. that have been a bt i&atratively - requirements of Executive Order 12291
continued In accordance wIth 5122.6 pursuant to Section 8(b) of that Order.
may apply for coverage under this 3. Paper vork Reduction Act
general permit When coverage is
granted the expired individual permit - EPA has reviewed the requements
automatically will cease being in effect. imposed on regulated facilities b these
‘- t ’drafl general NPDES permits uiJer the
B. The Coastal Zone Management Act - Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.44
The Coastal Zone Management Act U.S.C §53501 at. seq. The information
(CZMA), 16 U.S.C. §51451 at Se.. end collection requirements of these draft
Its implementing regulations 115 Q ’R permits have already been approved by
Part 9301 require that any federally the Office of Management and Budget
licensed activity affecting the mami : under 5 h,,it4nii made for the I WDES
zone with an approved Coastal Zone - permit program under the provisions of
Management Program ( wtP) be - the Clean. Water Act. No comments from
determined to be consistent with the the Office of Management and Budget or
( hW. EPA. Region I, has determined the public were received on the
that these general NPDES permits are Information thllection requirements in
• consistent with the CZ4P. EPA has - these permits.
received certification from the -
Mas whusetts. Maine. and New - - C. The Regulatory Flprihili Zy Act
Hampshire coastal zene agencies far a After review of the facts presented In
determination that these three permits the notice printed above. I hereby
are consistent with their respective State certify. pursuant to the provisions of S
policies. - U.S.C §60 5(b). that this permit does not
have a significant impact on a
C. The Endangered Species ACt substantial number of small entities.
EPA Region I has concluded that the Moreover, the draft permit will reduce
discharges to be covered by the general a significant administrative burden on
NPDES permits will not affect or regulated sources.
-------
63796
Federal Register / Vol . 59. No. 236 / Friday, December 9, 1994 / Notices
Dated: November 20. 1994.
John P. De illars.
Regional Administrator.
Appendix A—Summary of Responses to
Public Comments on the July 28, 1994
Draft General Permit
Based on comments from the States of
Maine and New Hampshire the
requirement of Footnote No. I under
Part I l.a. is limited for the State of
Massachusetts only. Based on another
comment the note A.l.h. under Part!
A.l.h. has been changed. The change is
that the Toxicity testing will be
performed when requested by EPA or
State within 90 days alter the date of
request.
Appendix B—Final General Permit
Under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
Note The Following general NPDES permit
has been combined for purposes of this
Federal Register notice in order to eliminate
duplication of material common to all
permits for the individual states.
1. Massachusetts, Maine an ’New
Hampshire Genera) Permit
In compliance with the provisions of
the Federal Clean Water Act, as
amended, (33 U.S.C. 1251 et.seq. the
“CWA”) operators of facilities located in
Part U I A. which discharge effluent from
water treatment facilities as defined in
Part II of Supplementary Information to
waters as designated in Part III A in
accordance with effluent limitations,
monitoring requirements and other
conditions set forth herein.
This permit shall become effective
when issued.
This permit and the authorization to
-discharge expire at midnight. five years
from the effective date of the Federal
Register Publication.
This permit consists of Part I below
Including effluent limitations,
monitoring requirements etc. and Part II
General Requirements.
Operators of facilities within the
general permit area who fail to notify
the Director of their intent to be covered
by this gener t permit and receive no
written notification of permit coverage
or those who are denied by the Direct”
are not authorized under this genera
permit to discharge from those fadit .
to the receiving waters.
Signed this lath day of November 1994.
David A. Fierra,
Director. Water Management Division.
Envuonmentoi Protection Agency. Region I.
Boston. Massachusetts.
- Andrew Gottlith,
Director, Office of Watershed Management.
Bureau of Resource Protection.
Commonwealth of Massachbsetts. Boston,
M4. -
Part I
A. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
Requirements
1. During the period beginning
effective date and lasting through
expiration, the per!nittee is authorized
to discharge from each outfall effluent
from water treatment facilities to
receiving waters as designated in Part II I
A
a. Such discharges shall ho limited
and monitored by the permittee as
specified below:
b. The dIci ’ha, 50 shall not cause
objectionable discoloration of the
receiving waters.
c. There shall be no discharge of
floating soli& or visible foam. Th.
discharge shall be adequately treated to
Insure that the surface water ra iAin
free from pollutants In concentrations or
combinations that settle to form harmful
deposits, float as foam, debris, scum or
other visible pollutants. It shall be
adequately treated to insure that the
surface waters remain free from
pollutants which produce odor, color.
taste or turbidity In the receiving water
which is not naturally occurring and
would render It unsuitable for its
designated use.
d. The effluent limitations are based
on the state water quality standard and
arecertifled bythe states.
e. Samples taken In compliance with
the monitoring requirements specified
above shall be taken at the point of
dischnrge.
L All discharges as designated in Part
U of Supplementary Information shall
pass through a settling pond for 24
hours minimum detention time or other
approved treatment system and meet the
effluent limitations In Part 1.A.1.a. prior
to discharge to waters of the states.
g. pH.
Massachusetts
The pH of the effluent shall not be
less than nor greater than the range
given for the receiving water
classifications, unless these values are
exceeded due to natural causes. The
following table specifies ranges for
Massachusetts:
C lassi Scation
Range
-
.._....
SB .__..___
Sc ...... - .. ....
6.5-8.3
6.5-9.0
t5-e.s
6.5-9.0
Maine
The pH range In both freshwater and
saltwater is 6.0 to 8.5 su. unless
establishes an a case-by’case basis (By
State Policy).
Flow (MGD).
Effluent characteristic
Discharge limitations
Monitoring requirements
Avg. Max.
manthiy iIy’
Measurement
frequency 2
1/week ......
Sai WIO type
See note A.t. i
Daily average.
TSS (mgi)..
Settleable Solids (mill)’.
.... .
30 50
.1 02
I/week ......_..._.
1/week -
Grab.
Grab.
04
Aluminum (mgi).
1C50&C_NOEC2 3 ... ........
.___ . . _ _ —
See Note A 1.g.
See note A.1 j
See note A.1.h CorT
See note A.i.k
.... ....... , ..........
Ilmonth ..._....
.. ......
1/week
Grab.
Con
Grab.
.__............._
...__
. .... . ...
‘ I
Chlorine Residual’ ugh
F :
‘Requirement far the State of Massachusetts only.
2 Sainples shall be taken only when discharging.
3 IC-So is the concentration of effluent In a samgle thai causes mortality to 50% of the test population at a specific time of obsenralion.
No Observed Chronic Effect Conceneatlan (C-NOEC) is the highest concentration of effluent to which organisms are exposed in a life.cycle or
partial lifecyde test which no adverse effect on growth, swvival arid reproduction.
‘Test only if chlorination is used in t e process.
-------
Federal Register I VoL 59. No. 236 / Friday 1 December 9, 1994 / Notices
63797
:‘ew Hampshire
The pH of the effluent shall not be
less than 6.5 standard units (su) nor
greater than 8.0 sr i at any time unless
these values are exceeded due to natural
causes.
h. One chronic and modified acute
toxicity screening test shall be
performed by the permittee when
requested by EPA or State within 90
days after the date of request. One grab
sample will be taken during normal
facility operation. The Ceriodaphnia
dubia for fresh water and sea.urchin for
marine water shall be used as test
organism in the test. A copy of the test
procedure and detailed protocol will be
provided upon request from EPA.
Region I. The results of the chronic
biological test (C-NOEC and LC5O) will
be forwarded to State and EPA within
30 days after the completion of all tests.
1. The states of Massachusetts and
New Hampshire will have a ma,dmum
daily limit of 1.0 mgd. The state of
Maine will have a maxmlum daily limit
of 0.15 mgd.
j. For the states of Massachusetts and
New Hampshire report only. For the
state of Maine the maximum daily limit
of Aluminum will be 5.0 mg/L
k. For the states of Massachusetts and
w Hampshire report only. For the
alate of Maine the maximum daily limit
of chionne residual will be 1.0 mg/I.
B. Monitoring end Reporting
Maine. Mn husetts and New
Hampshire
Monitoring results obtained during
the previous 6 months shall be
amTnarized for each quarter and
reported on separate Discharge
Monitoring Report Form(s) postmarked
no later than the 15th day of the month
following the completed reporting
period. The reportsaiedue on the 15th
• days of January and July. The first report
may include less than 6 months
information.
Signed copies of these, and all other
reports required herein, shall be
seburitted to the Director and the State
at the following addresses as follows:
a. EPA shall receive copy of all
reports required herein: NPDES Program
Operations Section. Water Compliance
Branch Water Management Division.
Environmental Protection Agency, Post
Office Box 8127, Boston. MA 02114.
b Massachusetts Division of Water
Pollution Control
(1) The Regional offices wherein the
charge occurs, shall receive a copy of
..aI reports required herein:
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection.
Massachusetts Division of Water
Pollution Control. Western Regional
Office, 436 Dwight St.. Suite4OZ
Springfield. MA 01101
Mncc chusetts Department of
Environmental Protection,
M cerhusetts Division of Water
Pollution Control, Southeastern
Regional Office. 20 Riverside Drive
Lakeville, MA 02346
M c-c irbusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
Massachusetts Division of Water
Pollution Control. Northeastern
Regional Office. 10 Commerce Way.
Woburn, MA 01801
M c 4 usetts Department of
Environmental Protection.
Mem husetts Division of Water
Pollution Control. Central Regional
Office. 75 Grove Street, Worcester,
Massachusetts 01605
(2) All notifications and reports
required by this permit shall be
submitted to the States at:
M c ihusetts Department of
Environmental Protection. Office of
Watershed Management. 40 Institute
Road, North Grafton, MA. 01536.
c. Maine Department of
Environmental Protection.
Signed copies of all reports required
by this permit shall be sent to the State
of Maine Department of Environmental
Protection, Operation and Maintenance
.Dlvtsion. State House, Station 17.
Augusta. ME 04333.
cL New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services.
Signed copies of all reports required
by this permit shall be sent to the State
at: New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services. Water Supply
end Pollution Control Division, Permits
and Compliance Section; P.O. Box 95,
Concord. New Hampshire 03302-0095.
C. Additional General Permit Conditions
1. Nof4 r t4on Requirements -
a. Written notification of
mInpn , 1nent of operations including
the legal names and addresses of the
owners and operator and the locations.
number and type of facilities and/or
operations covered shall be submitted.
(1) For existing discharges withIn 180
days after the effective date of this
permit. by operators whose facilities
and/or operations are discharging into
the general permit area on the effective
date of the permit: or
(2) For new or substantlaily increased
discharges 30 days prior to
commencement of the discharge by
operators whose facilities and/or
operations commence disa-h i’ge
subsequent to the effective date of this
permit.
b. Operators of facilities and/or
operations within the general permits
area who fail to notify the Director of
their intent to be covered by this general
permit and do not obtain written
authorization of coverage are not
authorized under this general permit to
discharge from those facilities into the
named receiving waters.
2. Termination of Operations
Operators of facilities andlor
operators authorized under this permit
shall notify the Director upon the
termination of discharges. The notice
must contain the name, mailing address.
and location of the facility for which the
notification is submitted, the NPDES
permit number for the water’ reatment
facility discharge identified by thern
notice, and an indication of whether the
operator of the discharge has changed.
The notice must be signed in
accordance with the signatory
requirements of 40 CFR § 122.22.
3. Renotification
Upon reissuance of a new general
permit. the permittee is required to
notify the Director of the intent to be
covered by the new general permit.
4. When the Director May Require
Application for an Individual NPDES
Permit
a. The Director may require any
person authorized by this permit to
apply for and obtain an individual
NPDES permit. Any Interested person
may petition the Director to take such
action. Instances where an individual
permit may be required include the
following:
(1) The discharge(s) is a significant
contributor of pollution:
(2) The discharger Is not in
compliance with the conditions of this
permit:
(3) A change has occurred in the
availability of the demonstrated
technology of practices for the control or
abatement of pàllutants applicable to
the point source;
(4) Effluent limitation guidelines are
promulgated for point sow covered
by this permit;
(5) A Water Quality Management Plan
contAining requirements applicable to
such point source is approved; or
(6) The point source(s) covered by this
permit no longer
(a) Involves the same volume or
substantially similar types of operations
(b) Discharges the same type of
wastes;
(c) Requires the same effluent
limitations or operating conditions;
(d) Requires the same or similar
monitoring and
(e) In the opinion of the Director is
more appropriately controlled under a
-------
63798
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 236 I Friday, December 9, 1994/ Notices
general permit than under an individual
NPDES permit.
b. The Director may require an
individual permit only if the permittee
authorized by the general permit has
been notified in writing that an
individual permit is required, and has
been given a brief explanation of the
reasons for this decision.
5. When an Individual NPDES Permit
is issued to an operator otherwise
subject to this general permit, the
applicability of this permit to that
owner or operator is automatically
terminated on the effective date of the
individual permit.
Part 11, Standard Conditions
Section A. General Requirements
1. Duty To Comply
The peimittee must comply with all
conditions of this permit. Any permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation
of the Clean Water Act and is grounds
for enforcement action; for permit
termination, revocation and reissuance,
or modification; or for denial of a permit
renewal application.
a. The permittee shall comply with
effluent standards or prohibitions
established under Section 307(a) of the
CWA for tonic pollutants and with
standards for sewage sludge use or
disposal established under Section
405(d) of the CWA within the time
provided in the regulations that’
establish these standards or
prohibitions, even If the permit has not
yet been modified to Incorporate the
requirement.
b. The CWA provides that any person
who violates Sections 301, 302. 306,
307, 308, 318, or 405 of the CWA or any
permit condition or limitation
• implementing any of such sections in a
permit issued under Section 402. or any
requirement Imposed in a pretreatment
program approved under Sections -
402(a113) or 402(b)(8) of the CWA Is
subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$25,000 per day for each violation. Any
person who negligently violates such
requirements is subject to a fine of not
less than $2,500 nor more than $25,000
per day of violation, or by imprisonment
for not more than 1 year, or both. Any
person who knowingly violates such
requirements Is subject to a fine of not
less than $5,000 nor more than $50,000
per day of violation, or by imprisonment
for not more than 3 years, or both. Note:
See 40 CFR 122.41(aX2) for additional
enforcement alteria.
C. Any person may be assessed an
RAmlni .Itrative penalty by the
Administrator for violating Section 301.
302. 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the
CWA. or any permit condition or
limitation implementing any of stich
sections in a permit issued under
Section 402 of the CWA. Administrative
penalties for Class I violations are not to
exceed $10,000 per violation, with the
maximum amount of any Class I penalty
assessed not to exceed $25,000.
Penalties for Class U violations are not
to exceed $10,000 per day for each day
during which the violation continues,
with the maximum amount of any Class
U penalty not to exceed $125,000.
2. Permit Actions
This permit may be modified, revoked
and reissued, or terminated for cause.
The filing of s request by the permittee
for a permit modification, revocation
and reissuance, or termination, or a
notification of planned changes or
anticipated noncompliance does not
stay any permit condition.
3. Duty To Provide Information
The perniittee shall furnish to the
Regional Administrator, within a
reasonable time, any information which
the Regional Administrator may request
to determine whether cause exists for
modifying, revoking and reissuing, or
terminating this permit. or to determine
compliance with this permit. The
perinittee shall also furnish to the
Regional Administrator, upon request,
copies of records required to be kept by
this ’ permit.
4. Reopener Clause
The Regional At1minis rator reserves
the right to make appropriate revisions
to this permit in order to establish any
appropriate effluent limitations,
schedules of compliance. or other
provisions which may be authorized
under the CWA in order to bring all
discharges into compliance with the
CWA.
5. Oil and Hazardous Substance
Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve the permittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities. or
penalties to which the permittee Is or
maybe subiect under Section 311 of the
C’WA. or SectIon 106 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
6. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not
convey any property rights of any sort,
nor any exclusive privileges.
7. Confidentiality of Information
a. In accordance wIth 40 CFR Pail 2.
any information submitted to EPA
pursuant to these regulations may be
claimed as confidential by the
submitter. Any such claim must be
asserted at the time of submission in th
manner prescribed on the application
form or instructions or, in the case of
other submissions, by stamping the
words “confidentIal business
information” on each page contAining
such information. 11 no claim is made a:
the time of submission, EPA may make
the information available to the public
witho utfurt her notice. If a claim is
asserted, the information will be treated
In accordance with the procedures in 4(
CFR Part 2 (Public Information).
b. ( lnim of confidentiality for the
following Information will be denied:
(I) The name and address of any
permit applicant or permittee:
(Ii) Permit applications, permits. and
effluent data as defined in 40 CFR
2.302(a)(2).
c. Information required by NPDES
application forms provided by the
Regional Administrator under § 122.21
may not be claimed confidential. This
includes information submitted on the
forms themselves and any attachments
used to supply information required by
the.forzns.
8. Duty To Reapply
If the pennittee wishes to continue ai.
activity regulated by this permit after its
expiration date, the permittee must
apply for and obtain a new permit. The
permittee shall submit a new
application at least 180 days before the
expiration date of the existing permit,
unless permission for a later date has
been granted by the Regional
Mmin4 trator. (The Regional
Administrator shall not grant
permission for applications to be
submitted later than the expiration date
of the existing permit.)
9. State Authorities
Nothing In Part 122, 123, or 124
precludes more stringent State
regulation of any activity covered by
these regulations, whether or not under
an approved State program.
10. Other Laws
The issuance of a permit does not
authorize any injury to persons or
property or Invasion of other private
tights. nor does it, relieve the perinittee
of Its obligation to comply with any
other applimble Federal. State, and
local laws and regulations.
Section B. Operation and Maintenance
of Poll ution Controls
1. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The permIttee shalPat all times
properly operate and maintain all
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 236 I Friday, December 9 1994 I. Notices
63799
‘qities and systems of treatment and
rol (and related appurtenances)
vhich axe installed orused by the
permittee to achieve compliance with
the conditions of this permit and with
the requirements of storm waler
pollution prevention plans. Proper
operation and maintenance also
includes adequate laboratory controls
and appropriate quality assurance
procedures. This provision requires the
operation of back-up or auxiliary
facilities or similar systems only when
the operation is necessary to achieve
compliance with the conditions of the
permit.
2. Need to Halt or Reduce Not a Defense
It shall not be a defense for a
permittee in an enforcement action that
it would have been necessary to halt or
reduce the permitted activity in order to
maintain compliance with the
conditions of this permit.
3. Duty to Mitigate
The permittee shall take all
reasonable steps to minimize or prevent
any discharge or sludge use or disposal
in violation of this permit which hasa
reasonable likelihood of adversely
ect1ng human health or the
ironment.
4. Bypass
a. Definitions. -
(1) “Bypass” means the Intentional
diversion of waste streams from any
portion of a treatment facility.
(2) “Severe property damage” means
substantial physical damage to property.
damage to the treatment facilities which
causes them to become inoperable, or
substantial and permanent loss of
natural resources which can reasonably
be expected to occur in the absence of
a bypass. Severe property damage does
not mean economic loss caused by
delays in production.
b. Bypass not exceeding limitations.
The perinittee may allow any bypass to
occur which does not cause effluent
limitations to be exceeded, but only if
it also is for essential maintenance to
assure efficient operation. These
bypasses are not subject to the
provisions of Paragraphs B.4.c and 4.d
of this section.
c. Notice.
(1) Anticipated bypass.
If the permittee knows in advance of
the need for a bypass, It shall submit
prior notice, if possible at least ten days
‘fore the date of the bypass.
(2) Unanticipated bypass.
The permittee shall submit notice of
an unanticipated bypass as required in
Paragraph D.1.e (24-hour notice).
d. Prohibition of bypass.
(1) Bypass is prohibited, and the
Regional Athninictrato; may take
enforcement action against a perinittee
for bypass, unless:
(a) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent
loss of life. personal injury, or severe
property damage;
(b) There were no feasible alternatives
to the bypass, such as the use of
auxiliary treatment facilities, retention
of untreated wastes, or maintenance
during normal periods of equipment
downtime. This condition is not
satisfied if adequate beck-up equipment
should have been installed inhe
exercise of reasonable engineering
judgment to prevent a bypass which
occurred during normal periods of
equipment downtime or preventive
maintenance: and
(c) (I) The permittee submitted notices
as required under Paragraph 4.c of this
section.
(ii) The Regional Administrator may
approve an anticipated bypass, after
considering its adverse effects, if the
Regional Administrator determines that
it will meet the three conditions listed
above in Paragraph 4.d of this section.
5. Upset
a. Definition. “Upset” means an
exceptional incldqnt In which there Is
unintentional and temporary non-
compliance with technology-based
permit effluent limitations because of
factors beyond the reasonable control of
the permittee. An upset does not
Include noncompliance to the extent
caused by operational error, improperly
designed treatment facilities, inadequate
treatment facilities, lack of preventive
maintenance, or careless or improper
operation.
b. Effect of an upset. An upset
constitutes an affirmative defense to an
action brought for noncompliance with
such technology-based permit effluent
limitations if the requirements of
Paragraph B.5.c of this section are met.
No determination made during
administrative review of claims that
noncompliance was caused by upset.
and before an action for noncompliance.
Is final admini trative action subject to
judicial review. -
c. Conditions necessary for a
demonstration of upseL A permittee
who wishes to establish the affirmative
defense of upset shall demonstrate,
through properly signed.
contemporaneous operating logs, or
other relevant evidence that:
(1) An upset occurred and that the
permittee can identify the cause(s) of
the upset;
(2) The permitted facility was at the
time being properly operated;
(3) The permittee submitted notice of
the upset as required in Paragraphs
D.1.a and i.e (24-hour notice); and
(4) The per-mine. complied with any
remedial measures required under B.3.
above.
d. Burden of proof. In any
enforcement proceeding the permittee
seeking to establish the occurrence of an
upset has the burden of proof.
Section C. Monitoring and Records
1. Monitoring and Records
a. Samples and measurements taken
for the purpose of monitoring shall be
representative of the monitored activity.
b. Except for records of monitoring
information required by this permit
related to the permittee’s sewage sludge
use and disposal activities, which shall
be retained for a period of at least five
years (or longer as required by 40 CFR
Part 503). the permittee shall retain
records of all monitoring information.
including all calibration and
maintenance records and all onginal
strip chart recordings for continuous
monitoring instrumentation, copies of
all reports required by this permit. and
records of all data used to complete the
application for this permit. for a period
of at least 3 years from the date of the
‘sample. measurement, report or
application except for the information
concerning storm water discharges
which must be retained for a total of S
years. This retention period may be
extended by request of the Regional
Administrator at any time. -
c. Records of monitoring information
shall include:
(1) The date, exact place. and time of
sampling or measurements;
(2) The individual(s) who performed
the sampling or measurements;
(3) The date(s) analyses were
performed:
(4) The Individual(s) who performed
the analyses;
(5) The analytical techniques or
methods used; and
(6) The results of such analyses.
d. Monitoring results must be
conducted riuing to teat procedures
approved under 40 CFR Pan 136 or. in
the case-of sludge use or disposal,
approved under 40 R Part 136 unless
otherwise specified In 40 CFR Part 503
unless other test procedures have been
specified In the permit.
e. The Clean Water Act provides that
any person who falsifies, tampers with,
or knowingly renders inaccurate any
monitoring device or method required
to be maintained under this permit
shall, upon conviction, be punished by
a fine of not more than $10,000, or by
imprisonment for not more than 2 years
-------
F .J R t.r I VoL 59, No. 236/ Friday, December 9. 1994 1 Noticer
orb aca nvictisuolapamcn isfor
a violation . . itted a r a first -
conviction of sash person under this
para aph. ponishment is. fine of not
moss than 0 .000perdayofviola*ioe,
or by imprisonment of not mom than 4
years. or both.
, r. ii and Entry
The permittan shall allow the
Regional Administrator. or an
authorized representative (including an
authorized coIII a ng as a
representative of the “ ?2tor},
upon p,e antahion of I ” and
other documents as may be rnpsized by
law, to:
a. Enter upon the p IP rnttn&a premises
where a regulated f tfty or activity is
located or cenducted, or where records
must ha kept wider the conditions of
this peraut
b.Hava ” teandcopy.at
easnT1 .}Ip tim q any remrcis that mesa
be kept under the rnnditinng of this
permit
C. Inspect at times any
facilities, equipment (including
monitoring and control eqIth mRnt3 ,
practices, or operations regulated or
required under this permit and
d. Sample or monitor at
times, for the purposes of assorang
permit compliance or as otherwise
authorized by the clean Water Act, any
or parametea at any
location.
Section 1). Hepozthtg R uhemen
1. Reporting Raquirem*u*a
a. ‘Planned changes. The parmitteo
shall give notice to the Regional
Mmrn . trator an sane as p”ssible of any
pla.iiad physical alterations or
additions to the permitted facility.
Notice is required only whan
(1) The alteration or addition to a
permitted facility may mast one of the
criteria for determining whether a
facility Is a new source In 40 CI’R
§ 122.29(b); or
(2) The alteration or addition onrid
significantly change the nature or
Innease the quantity of pollutants
dlca-IFged. This notification applies to
pollutants which are anb)ect to the
effluent limitations In the permit, nor to
the notification requiramonts under 40
CFR §122.42(a)(t).
(3) The alteration or addition results
in a aigniSr uit change In the permittee’s
sludge we or disposal practiom. and
such alteration, addition or change may
Justify the application of permit
conditions different from or absent in
the e dstlng permit, Including
notification of additional use or disposal
sites not reported during the permit
application process or net it4
pursuant loan approo d land
application plan.
b. Anticipated noncompliance. The
p ittee shall give advance notice to
the Regional A,I,Mi iSt aZOrO( any
planned changes in the r ’”ttsd
facility or activity which may result in
noncompliance with mit
requirementa.
C. Tmnsf era. This permit is not
transferable to any person except after
notice to the Regional Administrator.
The Regional Avhnini tratermnay require
modificatiesi or revunrion and
reissuance of the permit to change the
name of the permittee and incorporate
such other requirements an may be
necessary under the Cleen Water Act.
(See § 122.61; In some cases.
modification or revocation and
reissuance is ____
d. Monitoring reports. Monitoring -
results shall be reported at the intervals
spe d elsewhere in this permit.
(1) Mooitnring results must be
reported on a. Discharge Monitoring
Report (DMR) or forms provided or
specified by the Regional Mmini rator
for reporting results of monitoring of
sludge use or disposal practices.
(2) If the permittea mo nlt eraany
pollutant more frequently than required
by the pennit using test procedures
approved under 40 R Part 136 or, in
the case of sludga use or disposaL
approved under 40 CFR Past 136 in I
otherwise specified In 40 CFR Part 303.
or assp. effi .d in the p.vmit . the results
of this monitoring shall be included, in
the v a)rii? ati and reporting of the data
submitted’in the DMR or sludge
reporting fo sp fi d by the RegionaL
Administrator.
(3) Calculations forall limitations
which require averaging of
measurements shall utilize an
arithmetic mean unless otherwise
specified by the Regional Mmfnfstratar
in the permit.
a. Twenty-Jour hourrepozting.
(1) The permittee shall report any
noncompliance which may endanger
health or the environment Any
infolmation shall be provided orally
within 24 from the time the
permittee becomes aware of the
circumstances.
A written submission shall also be
provided withIn 5 days of the time the
pelinittee becomes aware of the
circumstances. The written submission
shall contain a description of the
noncompliance and its cause the period
of noncompliance. including enact dates
and times, and if the noncompliance has
not been corrected. the anticipated time
it is expected to contInue and steps
taken or pLanned to reduce, eliminate.
and reoecu . . of the
noncoraplianca
(21 Th. following shall be’inchzdede.
Information which muet be repoiled
within 24 bows under this paragraph.
(a) Any unanticipated bypass which
exceeds any effluent limitation in the
permit. (See § 122.41(g))
(b Anyupeat which exceedsany
effluent limitation in the permit.
Ic) Violation of a maximum daily
discharge limitation far any of the
poflni tnts lis ed by the Regional
Administrator in the permit to be
reported within 24 hours. (See
§ 122.44(g))
(3) The Regional Adminiitrator may
waive the written report on a case-by-
case basis for reports under Paragraph
D.1.s if the oral report has been received
within 24 hours.
I Compliance Sdrethdes. Reports of
compliance or noncompliance with, or
any progress reports on, Interim and
final requirements contained in any
compliance schedule of this permit
shall be submitted no later than 14 days
following each schedule date.
g. Other noncomphance. The
permitlee shall report all instances of
noncompliance not reported under
Paragraphs Did. Di. . and D.1.foltbis
section, at the time monitoring reports
are submitted. The reports shall “ tam
theinformation listed In Paragraph
D.1.o of this section.
h. Other inftmsstion. Where the
permlttee become, that ft failed to
submit any relevant facts in a permit
application, arsubmitted hiconect
Information the permit application or
in any iapart to the Regional
Administrator, it shall promptly submit
such facts or information.
2. -c gn tory Requirement
a. All applications, reports. or
Information submitted to the Regional
Administrator shall be signed and
certified. (See § 122.22)
b. The CWA provides that any person
who knowingly m frso any false
statement, repmessntntlon. or
- certification in any record or other
document submitted or required to be
maintained under this permit, Including
monitoring reports or reports of
compliance or non-compliance shall,
upon conviction, be punished by a fine
of not more than 510.000 per violation,
or by imprisonment for not more than
6 months per violation, or by both.
3. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be
confidential under Paragraph AS.
above, all reports prepared in
accordance with the terms of this permit
shall be available for public Inspection
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 236 / Friday, December 9, 1994 1 Notices
63801
at the offices of the State water pollution
ntrol agency and the Regional
.t!mimgtrator. As required by the CWA,
effluent data shall not be considered
confidential. Knowingly making any
false statement on any such report may
result in the imposit ion of ormn iniil
penalties as provided for In Section 309
of the CWA.
Section E. Other Conditions
1. Definitions for purposes of this
permit are as follows:
Administrator means the
Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency. or an
authorized representative.
Applicable standards and limitations
means all State. interstate, and Federal
standards and limitations to which a
“discharge” or a related activity is
subject to, including water quality
standards. standards of performance,
toxic effluent standards or prohibitions.
“best management practices,” and
pretreatment standards under sections
301. 302, 303. 304. 306. 307, 308, 403,
and 405 of CWA.
Application means the EPA standard
national forms for applying for a permit.
including any additions, revisions or
modifications to the forms; or forms
ipproved by EPA for use in “approved
ates,” including any approved
..iodiflcations or revisions.
Average The arithmetic mean of
values taken at the frequency required
for each parameter over the specified
period. For total and/cr focal celiforms,
the average shall be the geometric mean.
Average monthly discharge limitation
means the highest allowable average of
“daily dtw hsi ges ” over a calendar
month, calculated as the sum of all daily
discharges measured during a calendar
month divided by thrnumber of daily
discharges measured during that month.
Average weekJy discharge limitation
means the highest allowable average of
“daily discharges” over a calendar
week, calculated as the sum of all daily
discharges measured during a calendar
week divided by the number of daily
discharges measured during that week.
Best Management Practices (BMPs)
means schedules of activities,
prohibitions of practices, maintenance
procedures, and other management
practices to prevent or reduce the
pollution of “waters of the United
States.” BMPs also Include treatment
requirements, operating procedures, and
practices to control plant site runoff,
spillage or leaks, sludge or waste
‘;sposal, or drainage from raw material
orage.
Best Professional Judgement (BPJJ
means a case”by’case determination of
Best Practicable Treatment (BPT). Best
Available Treatment (BAT) or other
appropriate standard based on an
evaluation of the available technology to
achieve a particular pollutant reduction.
Composite Sample—A sample
consisting of a minimum of eight grab
samples collected at equal Intervals
during a 24-hour period (or lesser -
period as specified in the section on
Monitoring and Reporting) and
combined proportional to flow, or a
sample continuously collected
proportionally to flow over that same
time period.
Continuous Discharge means a
“discharge” which ocouis without
Interruption throughout the operating
hours of the facility except for
infrequent shutdowns for maintenance,
process changes, or similar activities.
CWA or “The Act” means the Clean
Water Act (formerly referred to as the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act or
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972) Pub, L 92—500,
as amended by Pub. L 95—217, Pub. L
95—576, Pub. L.. 96—483 and Pub. L 97—
117; 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.
Daily Discharge means the discharge
of a pollutant measured during a
calendar day or any 24-hour period that
reasonably represents the calendar day
for purposes of sampling. For pollutants
with limitations expressed in units of
mass, the daily discharge is calculated
as the total mass of the pollutant
discharged over the day. For pollutants
with limitations expressed in other
units of measurements, the daily
discharge is calculated as the average
measurement of the pollutant over the
day.
Director means the person authorized
to sign NPDES permits by EPA and/or
the State.
Discharge Monitoring Report Form
(DMR) means the EPA standard national
form, including any subsequent
additions, revisions, or modifications,
for the reporting of seif-mocitorin
results by permittees. DMRs must
used by “approved States” as well as by
EPA. EPA will supply DMRs to any
approved State upon request The EPA
national forms may be modified to
substitute the State Agency name.
address, logo, and other similar
Information, as appropriate, in place of
EPA’s.
Discharge of a pollutant means:
(a) Any addition of any “pollutant” or
combination of pollutants to “waters of
the United States” from any “point
source,” or
(b) Any addition of any pollutant or
combination of pollutants to the waters
of the “contiguous zone” or the ocean
from any point source other than a
vessel or other floating craft which is
being used as a means of transportation
This definition includes additions of
pollutants into waters of the United
States from: surface runoff which is
collected or rhnnnelled by man:
discharges through pipes, sewers, or
other conveyances owned by a State,
municipality, or other person which do
not lead to a treatment works: and
discharges through pipes. sewers, or
other conveyances leading into privately
owned treatment works.
This term does not include an
addition of pollutants by any “indirect
discharger.”
Effluent limitation means any
restriction imposed by the Director on
quantities, discharge rates, and
concentrations of “pollutants” which
are “discharged” from “point sources”
into “waters of the United States,” the
waters of the “contiguous zone,” or the
ocean.
Effluent limitations guidelines means
a regulation published by the
Administrator under Section 304(b) of
CWA to adopt or revise “effluent
limitations.”
EPA means the United States
“Environmental Protection Agency.”
Grab Sample—An individual sample
collected in a period of less than 15
minutes.
Hazardous Substance means any
substance designated under 40 CFR Part
116 pursuant to SectIon 311 of CWA.
Maximum daily dischnrge limit atiun
means the highest allowable “daily
discharge.”
Municipality means a city, town,
borough, county, parish, district,
association, or other public body created
by or under State law and having
jurisdiction over disposal or sewage,
industrial wastes, or other wastes, or an
Indian tribe or an authorized Indian
tribe organization, or a designated and
approved management agency under
sectIon 208 of CWA.
National Poliutant Discharge
Elimination System means the national
program for issuing, modifying.
revoking and reissuing, terminating.
monitoring and enforcing permits, and
imposing and enforcing pretreatment
requirements, under sections 307, 402.
318, and 405 of CWA. The term
includes an “approved program.”
New discharger means any building.
structure, facility, or installation:
(a) From which there is or may be a
“discharge of pollutants”;
(b) That did not commence the
“discharge of pollutants” at a particular
“site” prior to August 13, 1979;
Ic) Which is not a “new source”: and
-------
63802
Federal Re ster I VoL. 59. No 236 / Friday. December 9. 1994 / Notices
(d l Which has never received a finally
effective NPut pemut for discharges at
that “sits”.
This definition Includes an “Indirect
discharger” which coences
discharging Into waters of the United
States” after August 13. 1979. ft also
Includes any’ existing mobile point
source (other than an offshore or coastal
oil and gas exploratory drilling rig or a
coastal oil and gas developmental
d ulling rig) suchas aseefood processing
rig. seafood processing vessel, or
aggregate plant, that begins discharging
at a “site for which it doer not have a
permit and any o±hore O?w .ieiAll
mobile oil and gas exploratory drilling
rig or coastal mobile oil and gee
developmental drilling rig that
commences the discharge of poflutants
after August 13. 1979, at a “site” under
EPAs permitting Inrisdiction for which
It is not .seered by an individual or..
general permit and which is located in
an area determined by the Regional
Administrator in the issuance of a final
permit to be an area of biological
concern. In determining whether an aree
is an area of biological concern, the
Regional Administrator shall consider
the factors specified in 40 C2 R S ons
§ 125.1224a)(l) (10).
An oilshore or’ - ” l mobile
exploratory drilLing rig or coastal mobile
developmental drilling rig will be
considered a “new discharger’ only for
the deration of its discharge in an area
of biological concern.
New source any biliMing ,
structure. f mhiy , or in ll t1n front
which there Isormaybe a”discharge
of pollutants.’ the construction of
which commenced:
(a) After promulgation of standards of
performance under SectIon 306 of CWA
which are applicable to such.
(b)Afterproposal of standards of
performance in acoor ” with Section
306 Of CWA which are applicable to
such source, but only If the standards
are p wulgated In accordance with
Section 306 within 120 days of their
proposal.
JVPDES mesas “National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System .
Non-Contact Cooling Water is water
used to reduce temperatur. which does
not come in db contact with any raw
materiel. Inte . .diate product. a waste
product or finished product.
Owner or operator means the owner
or operator of any “fonibty or activity”
subject to regulation under the NPDES
programs.
Permit means an autherization,
license, or equivalent control document
issued by EPA or an “approved State.”
Person means an Individual.
association, partnership. corporation,
municipality. State or F IQ? agency. or’
an agent or employee thereof.
Point source any disa’ ,nil iii.
co” & and discrete conveyance.
Including butnot Th lI& dto any pipe.
ditch. channel. hinn ! rnnrtiiiL well.
discrete fissure, container. rolling stncL
concentrated animal feeding operation.
vessel, or other fTnsiting craft, front.
which pollutants are or may ha
discharged. This term does not include
return flows from irrigated ngririiliure.
Pollutant means dredged spoil, solid
waste, incinerator residue, filter
backwash, sewage. garbage, sewage
sludge, munitions, chemical wastes.
biological materials, radioactive
materials (except those regulated under
the Atomicfinergy Act of 1934. as
amended (42 U.S.C. f 2011 at seq.Il.
heat, wrecked or discarded equipment.
rock. sand, cellar dirt and Industrial.
municipal, and agucultuzal waste
discharged into water. ft does not mean
(a) Sewage from vesseLs’, or
Ib) Water, g as. or other material which
is rn ected into a well to facilitate
production of oil or gas. or water
derived in association with oil and gas
production and disposed of in swell. if
the well used either to facilitate
production or for disposal purposes is
approved by authority of the State in
which the well is located. and iFthe
State d zu u that the In ectzon or
disposal will not result in the
degradation of ground or surface water
unources.
Primor, industry category moons any
industry category listed in the NRDC
settlement a eement (Nature!
ReseerceslfJefense Coned) at a). v.
Train, 8 E.R.C. 2120 (D.D.C. 1976),
modified 12 E.RC. 1833 (D.D.C, 1979));
also listed in Appendix A of 40
Part 122.
Process wostewater means any water
which, during manufacturing on
processing, comes into direct contact
with or results from the production or
use of any raw niatm5al, Intermediate
product, finished product , byproduct. or
waste product.
Regional AdmInistrator means the
Regional Administrator. EPA. Region I,
Boston, Ma rkusens.
State means any of the 3 States of
Maine, Mass rhi, ,*r and New
Hampshire.
Secondaiy Industry Category means
any industry category which is not a
“primary industry category.”
Toxic pollutant means any pollutant
listed as toxic in Appendix D of 40 CFR
Part 122. under Section 307(aXl) of
CWA.
Uncontaminated storm water is
precipitation to which no pollutants
have been added and has not come into
direct contact with any rew material.
intermediate product, waste product or
fiithhad product.
Waters of the United
(a) All waters which axe currently
used. were used in the past. or may be
susceptible to use in iniprctatn or foreign
commarca. including all waters which
are subject to the ebb and flow of the
tide;
(b) All interstate waters, including
interstate “wetlands.”
(c) All other waters such as intrastate
lakes, rivers, streams (incindiug
Intermittent streanm) mudflats.
sand0M. “wetlands,” sloughs. prairie
potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or
natural po the use. degradation, or
destruction of which would effect or
could aff interstate ar foreign
commerce ini4uding any such waters:
(1) WhiCh are or coula be used by
Interstate or heeign travelers for
recreational or other purposes’.
(2) From which fish or shellfish are or
could be taken and sold in interstate or
foreign commercer or
(3) Which are used or could be used
for industrial purposes by industries in
Interstate commerce
(dl All impn .Ivwlnients of waters
otherwise defined as waters of the
United States under this definition:
(e) Tributaries of waters identified in
paragraphs (a) (ii) of this d fini*iou;
(I) The territorial sea; and
(g) “Wetb.ndc.” adjacent to waters
(other than waters that are themselves
wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a)-
(fl of this d niUco,
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) means
the aggregate toxic effect of an effluani
measured directly by a toxicity test.
Wetlands means those areas that are
InwidatadL or imtad by surface or
ground water at a frequency and
duration s ,ffieini t to support, and that
under normal cizawistances do support,
a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally Include
swamps. marshes. bogs. and ii mihir
areas.
2. Abbreviations when used in this
permit are defined below
on. M/day or M3Iday cubIc meters per
day
mgIl: milligrams per liter
ugh: micrograms par liter
lbs/day pounds per day
kg/day- kilograms per day
Temp. °C temperature in degrees
Centigrade
Temp. ‘F: temperature in degrees
Fahrenheit
Turb.: turbidity measured by the
NephelometncM. hnvt (NTIJ)
pH: a mamure of the hydrogen ion
concentration
-------
Federal Ragieter I VoL 59, No. 236 / Friday, December 9, 1994 / Notices
83803
‘7S: cubic feet per second
:GD: ‘nilllnngsilnnaperday
.Jil & Greur Freon mntractable material
mi/l: mifliliter(s) per liter
Cl 2 : total residual chlorine
IFR Doc. 94—30313 PlIed 12-8—04; 8:45 sizil
M o coor
FEDERAL COPIdUNICATTONS
COMMISSION
Public Informedon Collection
Requirement Submitted to Office of
Management and Budget for Review
Novumba’ 30,1984.
The Federal t.ninrnunicatjons
Co n su d the
following information collection
requirement to 0MB for review and
clearance under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.aC 3507).
Copies of this submisaf an may be
purchased from the Cn i .4. on ’s copy
contractor, International Transcription
Service, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW, Suite
140. Wk hington, DC 20037. (202) 857—
3800. For further information on this
submission contact Judy Belay. Federal
Communications £ ,.m4 inn (202)
ai 0-0214 Persons wtchthg to c .i . m.nt
‘his inlonnatlon coll m . she’ jd
. .aact Tirunthy Fain, Office of
Management and Budget. Room 10214
NEOB. Washington, DC 20503 , (202)
395-3561.
OMB.Num 3060-0600.
Title: mplem. ’ ’ ’ 4 nn of SlInn
309(j) of the’ Il , . i i !n 4 Gon Act—
Competitive BltMbig.
Memorandum Opinion and Order. PP
Docket No. 93—253.
Form Number FCC Form l75!FCC
175—S.
Action: Revision of a mnrantly
approved coilei tkm.
Respondents: B” ” or other for
profit (Including mnall businesses).
Frequeric’,r of Responsm On u on
reporting requirement end
zecordkaeping requirement.
Estimated Annual Burden: 1,000.
3.000 responses. 3- 7.5 hours average
burden per response. 3.000. 22,500
hours burden; 1,000. 3.000
recordke.pera, 1 hour averag, burden
per recordkeeper, 4.000- 25.500 howe
total annual burden.
Needs end Usem The re
examined certain aspects of Its rules in
the Filth Memorandum Opinion Order.
a ’ 1 nted November10, 1994.
fically. the resolved
, ge nru.ted with our
entrepreneur’s block rules, as well as
other provisions we hIished to
ensure that small businesses, rural
telephone companies and businesses
owned by minorities and women
(collectively termed “designated
entities”) have a meaningful
opportunity to participate in the
provision of broadband PCS. Thus, as
described below, we relax some aspects
of our rules to encourage investment in
designated entities, but clarify other
provisions to emphasize that broadband
PCS participation for women and
minorities should be synonymous with
a bone fide and meaningful presence in
this emerging telecommunications
Industry. In rn .ln .a,y , the r, mnv . ion
decided to modify the rules to allow
oa.iain noncontrolling Investors who do
not qualify for the entrepreneurs’ block
or as small businesses to become
investors in an applicant’s control group
and allow entities that are controlled by
minorities andlor women, but that have
investors that are neither minorities nor
women, to be part of the control group.
Retain the requirement that a designated
entity’s control group own at least 25%
of the applicant’s total equity, but
require that only 15% be bald by
controlling members of the control
group that are minorities, women or
emaIIienttu .r. eurlal business
principals. The m.nbntnn 15% may be
held In the form of options, provided
these options are exercisable at any
time, solely at the holder’s discretion,
and at an exmdse price lam than or
equal to the current market valuation of
the underlying shares at the time of
filing FCC Form 175 (the short form).
The mcnnaiiI .ng 10% of the epplicanVs
eqtutymaybeheldln theformofeither
stock options or shame, and the FCC
will allow certain investors that may not
be women, minorities or small business!
entrepreneurial prlndpals to hold
Interests in such shares or options that
are pert of the control group’s equity.
The FCC Form 175 as been revised to
require applicants lai’wiv .g designated
entity status to certify that they will
consent to audits, as set forth in our
rules, to verify such status. See the Fifth
Memorandum Opinion and Order, PP
Docket No.93-253. released November
23, 1994, for further modifications to
these niles and requirements.
Federal r cefiOmi, Commission.
William F. CaSes,
Acting Secret c r
IFR Doe. 94-30243 Filed 12-08-94: &45 am!
corns eta-a.,
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
(FEMA -10 -ORJ
California; Amenthnent to NOIIC4 of a
Major D48a 5181 Declaration
AG tCY: Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
ACHON Notice.
SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice
of a mnejordisaster forthe State of
California (FEMA—1008-DR), dated
January 17, 1994, and related
dete mm4 n ttlozis .
ECTIVE DATE: November 30, 1994.
FOR RIRT1ER INFORMATION CCNTACT
Pauline C. Campbell. Response and
Recovery Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
Washington, DC 20472. (202) 646—3606.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that the incident period for
this disaster is closed effective
November 30. 1994.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.
83.316. DIsaster Assl anca.l
lL4 . W. Erlmsm,
‘ “Dk oz. Response and Recovers
Dbecforete.
IFR D cc. 94—30358 Filed 12—8—94: &45 amsi
coos 17t54a-M
IFEMA-1043-OR]
Florida; Major Disaster and Related
Determinations
AGENCY : Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
ACflON: Notice.
SUMMARY: This isa notice of the
Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Stat. of Florida (FEMA-
1043-DR), dated November 28, 1994,
and related deter,, nntio .
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 28. 1994.
FOR RIRTHER INFORMAI1ON CONTACT:
Pi”I” . C Campbell, Response and
Recovery Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency,
Waohington. DC 20472, (202) 646-3606.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATiON: Notice Is
hereby given that, in a letter dated
November 28, 1994, the President
declared a major disaster under the
authority of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency
As’ ntance Act (42 USC S lZIet seq.),
as follows:
I have determined that the damage in
certain areas of the State of Florid., resulting
from Tropisal Storm Cordon on November
14.1994. and continuing Is of sumcrenm
seventy and magnitude to wanaot a mapor
-------
48314
Federal Register! Vol 59, No 181 I Thesday, September 20. 1994 / NotIces
EPA explained in the preamble to the
final MSWLF aiteria, EPA expects that
any owner or operator complying with
provisions In a StatelTribal program
approved by EPA should be considered
to be in compliance with the Federal
Criteria. See 56 FR 50978. 50995
(October9. 1991).
Compliance With Executive Order
12866
The Office of Management and Eudget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 6 of Executive
Order 12866.
Certification Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C
605(b), 1 hereby certify that this
approval will not have a significant
economic Impact on a substantial
number of small entIties. ft does not
Impose any new burdens on small
entitles. This rule, therefore, does not
require a regulatory flexibilfty analysis.
Authotity This notice is issued under the
authority of section 4005 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act as amended; 42 U.s.c 8948.
JoeD . Winkle,
Acting ResjonalAdminisbetor.
IFR Doc. 94—23240 Filed 9-19-94; 8:45 aml
sees u.ur
(FRL-6 073-71
Draft NPOES General Permit for
Offshore Oil and Gas Ope. lons on
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and
Stat. Waters 1 Alaska: Arctic NPDES
General Permit
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of Draft NPDES General
Permit.
eJMUARY: The Regional Adnuni,trator.
Region 10, is proposing to issue a draft
National Pollutant Discharge
fliminAtlon System (NPDES) general
permit for oil and gas stratigraphic test
and exploration wells on the Alaskan
Outer Continental Shelf and contiguous
state waters. The proposed Arctic
general permit will authorize offshore
oil and gas siratigraphic test and
exploration wells in the federal and
state waters o(the Beaufort and Chukchl
Seas. Development and production
wells are not authorized to diwhz rge by
this &eneral permit.
Unlike previous general permits for
the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, the
Arctic general permit will cover a
geographic area not defined by specific
state and federal lease sale tracts.
Rather, the area of coverage includes the
following:
—Federal waters of the Beaufort Sea and
Chukchi Sea planning basins as
defined by the Minerals Management
Service MdS) (see U.S. Dept. of the
InterIor, 1992), and
—State waters contiguous to the
landward boundary of the Beaufort
and Chukchi Sea planning b ’cina-
The permit will authorize discharges
from exploratory operations in all areas
offered for lease by the U.S. Department
of the Interior’s Minerals Management
Service (MMSJ included in previous
general permits issued by EPA for the
Beaufort and Chukchl Seas. This
includes federal lease sales 71,87,97,
and 109; and state lease sales 36,39,43,
and 43A, Federal/State lease sale BF;
and “contiguous state lease sales”
which were covered by the modification
for the Beaufort Sea II NPDES general
permit (54 FR 39574, September 27,
1989). Additional lease sale areas not
previously covered by a permit will
include, but are not limited to, the
following: MMS federal lease sales 124
and 128; and state lease sales 65 and 68.
A brief description of the basis for the
conditions and requirements of the
proposed permit Is given in the fact
sheet published below.
PUBUC CO 1ENT PETIIOG: Interested
persons may submit written comments
on the draft general permit to the
attention of the Director, Water
Division, at the address below. All
comments should Include the name,
address, and telephone number of the
commenter and a concise statement of
the exact basis of any comment and the
relevant facts upon which it is based.
Comments must be received by the
regional office by November 21. 1994.
PUBUC HEARING: Public hearings on the
proposed general permit are tentatively
scheduled to be held in Anchorage and
Barrow, Alaska. The Barrow hearing
will be held at the North Slope Borough
Assembly Chambers on November 2.
1994, from 12 p.m.to 3 p.m. The
Anchorage hearing will be held at the
Federal Building. Room 137. 710 “C”
Street, Anchorage, Alaska on November
3, 1994. from 12 p.m. until 4p.m.
Persons interested in making a
statement at the hearing must contact
Debra Packard at the address below or
at (206) 553—1266 by 4:00 p.m. on
October 24. 1994.
Either or both of the public hearings
will be cancelled if insufficient interest
is expressed In them. Interested persons
can contact Debra Packard at (206) 553-
1266 during the hours of 8:30 a.m. and
4 p.m. PDT on October 25, 1994, to
confirm that the hearings will take
place. At the hearings, interested
persons may submit oral or written
statements concerning the draft general
permit.
ADIISTRA1IVE RECORG: The
administrative record for the draft
permit Is available for public review at
EPA, Region 10. at the address listed
below.
AOORESSES: Public comments and -
requests for coverage should be sent to:
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10. Attn: Ocean Programs
Section WD—137 , 1200 SIxth Avenue.
Seattle, Washington 98101.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CCNTACT
Anne Dailey or Eileen Hileman. both of
Region 10, at the address listed above or
telephone (206) 553—2110 or (206) 553—
6513, respectively. Copies of the draft
general permit and today’s publication
will be provided upon request
FACT SHEET
L General Permits and Requests for
Individual NPDES Permits
Section 301(a) of the Clean Water’ Act
(the Act) provides that the discharge of
pollutants is unlawful except in
accordance with the terms of an NPDES
permit. Under EPA’s regulations 140
CFR 122.28(a)(2)J, EPA may Issue a
single general permit to a category of
point sources located within the same
geographic area if the regulated point
—Involve the same or substantially
similar types of operations:
—Discharge the same types of wastes:
—Require the same effluent limitations
or operating condldons
—Require similar monitoring
requirements: and
—In the opinion of the Regional
Administrator, are more appropriately
controlled under a general permit
than under Individual permits.
In addition, under EPA regulations
140 ‘R 122.28(c)(1fl, the Regional
Administrator shall issue general
permits covering discharges from
offshore oil and gas facilities within the
Region’s jurisdiction. Where the
offshore area includes areas for which
separate permit conditions are required.
such as areas of environmental concern,
a separate Individual or general permit
may be required by the Regional
Administrator. The Regional
Administrator has determined that
exploratory oil and gas facilities
operating in the area described in this
general NPDES permit are more
appropriately controlled by a general
permit than by individual permits.
Any owner and/or operator
authorized to discharge under a general
permit may request to be excluded from
coverage under the general permit by
-------
Federal. R gIater I VoL 50. No. 181 1 Tuesday. September 20. 1994 I Notices
48315
applying for an individual permit as
provided by 40 CFR 122.28(b ). The
operator shall submit an application
together with the reeaona supporting the
reqne to the Director. Water Division.
A. RegIon 10 (“Dlrectori. A source
located within a a wal permit gee.
uded f inn. . e under the
general permit solely because It already
has an individual permit (i.e.. a permit
that has not been continued under the
Administrative Procedure Act). mey
request that Its individual permit be
revoked. and that It be covered by the
general permit Upon revocation of the
individual permit. the general permit
shall apply. Procedures for
modification, revocation, termination.
and processing of NPDES permits are
provided by 40 CFR 122.62—122.64. As
in the case of individual permits.
violation of any condition of a general
permit constitutes a violation of the Act
that Is enforceable under Section 309 of
theAc ,
II. Cuvcicd Facilities and Nature of
A. Types of Discharges Authorized
The proposed general permit will
the following discharges frOm
expkiatorj offshore oil and gas
operations; Drilling mud and drilling
tirg deck drainage; sanitary wastes;
lIim 4 c wastes; desalination unit
a blowout preventer fluid; boiler
blowdown fire control system test
water non-contact cooling water:
uwItminAted ballast warer
-‘ “taminated bilge water: excess
,ipnt slurry: mud, cuttings, and
nent at the seafloor: and test fluids.
Drilling muds and cuttings are the major
pefltifiint sour discharged from
exploratory operations. Further
J.uiptlon of discharges are given In
P itVbelow. When Isaued.the
piup ’—.d general permit Will establish
affluent limitations, standards.
prTlhihitlI .a and other conditions an
the authorized discharges from the
covered.
A 1)pes of Facilities Covered
The general permit proposed today
authorizes the discharge of specific
operational wastowaters from offshore
exploratory oil and ga. operations
I aI..d in federal and state waters. In
order to be authorized to discharge
. ..der this permit. the operator of such
exploratory operations must be
registered with EPA as the NPDES
perminee. Development and production
operations are not covered by this
general permit. Exploratory operations
are defined as those operations
involving th . drilling of wells to
determine the nature of potential ‘
hydrocarbon reserves. Exploration
fadlifies covered by this general permit
are Included In the Offshore
Subcategory of theOfi and Cu
E action Point Source Category (40
CFR part 435, subpart A). Under the
proposed permit. the number of wells
from which discharges may occur is
limited to a’maximum of five at a single
site. : -
C Areas Covered
The area of coverage under previous
general permits for offshore oil and gas
activities in Alaska was linked directly
to federal or state lease sales. For a
variety of reasons. EPA is now planning
to tie the area of coverage to MMS
planning basins and all contiguous state
waters. This method of defining the area
of’ coverage will ensure that all areas
likely to be leased during the term of
this general permit will be covered.
While the planning basins are generally
larger than the specific sale areas offered
for lease by MMS. discharges under this
permit would occur in only those areas
successfully leased. EPA believes that
this is a more practicable way of
addressing the area of coverage. Hence.
areas covered by the proposed Arctic
NPDES general permit Include the
BeaufoitSea and Chukchi Sea pl nn’ng
bacins as defined by MMS (U.S.
Department of the Interior, 19921. and
slate waters contiguous to the landward
boundary of the Beaufort Sea and
Chukchi Sea planning basins. The
general permit does not authorize
discharges Into any wetlands adjacent to
the territorial waters of Aiitak or from
facilities In the Onshore or Coastal
Subcategories as defined in 40 CFR Part
435. -.
IlL Statut y Basis for Permit
Conditions
Sections 301(b). 304. 306. 307. 308.
401.402.403. and 501 of the Clean
Water Act (The Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972. as
amended by the Clean Water Act of
1977 and the Water Quality Act of
1987). 33 U.S.C. 1311. 1314 (b). (c). and
(e). 1316. 1317. 1318 and 1361: 86 Stat.
816. Public Law 92—500 91 Stat. 1567.
Public Law 95—217; 101 Slat. 7. Public
Law 100-4 (“the Act or ‘ CWA1. and
the U.S. Coast Guard regulatIons (33
CFR Past 151), provide the basis for the
permit conditions contained in the
permit. The general requIrements of
these Sections fall Into three categories.
which are described below. A
discussion of the basis for specific
permit conditions follows in Section V
of this fact sheet.
A Tedurology.Based Effluent
limitations
1. BPT Effluent Limitations
The Aá requires particular classe, of
industrial dlschargers to meet effluent
limitations established by EPA. EPA
promilgated effluent limitations
guidelines requiring Best Practicable
Control Technology Currently Available
(BPT) for the Offshore Subcategory of
the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source
Category (40 CFR part 435. subpart A)
on AprIl 13. 1979 (44 FR 22069).
BPT effluent limitations guidelines
require “no discharge of free oil” for
discharges of deck drainage, drilling
muds, drill cuttings. and well treatment
fluids. This limitation requires that a
discharge shall not cause a film or sheen
upon or discoloration on the surface of
the water or adjoining shorelines, or
muse a sludge or emulsion to be
deposited beneath the surface of the
water or upon adlolning shorelines (40
CFR 435.11(d)!. The BPT guidelines for
sanitary waste require that the
concentration of chlorine be maintained
as close to 1 milligrams/lIter as possible
in discharges from facilities housing ten
or more persons. For facilities
continuously staffed by nine or fewer
persons or only Intermittently staffed by
any number of persons. the BPT
guideline for sanitary waste require no
discharge of floating solids. A “no
floating solids” u1deline also applies to
domestic waste.
2. BAT and BC Effluent Limitations
As soon as practicable but in no case
later than Mardi 31. 1989. all permits
are required by Section 301(bU2) of the
Act to contain effluent limitations for all
categories and classes of point sources
which: (1) Control toaic pollutants (40
CFR 401.15) and nonconventlonal
pollutants through. the use of Best
Available Technology Economically
Achievebre (BAT). and (2) represent
Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (DCfl. 8Cr effluent
limitations apply to conventional
pollutants (Ph. BOD. oil and grease.
suspended solids. and focal coliform). In
no case may BC or BAT be less
stringent than BPT.
BAI’ and BC !’ effluent limitations
guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) for offshore oil and
gas operations were proposed on August
26. 1985 (50 FR 34592) and sIgned on
January 14. 1993 (58 FR 12454. March
4. 1993). The new guidelines were
established under the authority of
SectIons 301(b). 304. 306. 307. 308, and
501 of the Act. The new guidelines were
also established In response to a
Consent Decree entered on April 3. 1990
-------
48316
Federal Register / VoL 59 . No. 181/Tuesday. September 20. 1994 I Notices
(subsequently modified on May 28.
1992) in NRDC v. ResiJy. D. D.C. No. 79—
3442 (JHP) and are consistent with
EPA’s Effluent Guidelines Plan under
Section 304(m) of the CWA (57 FR —
41000. September 8. 1992). This permit
incorporates BAT and BCT effluent
limitations based upon the BAT aqd
BCT affluent limitations guidelines.
New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) are not incorporated in this
general permit. Per the guidelines. NSPS
are not applicable to exploratory oil and
gas operations (58 FR 12457, March 4,
1993). Exploratory operations are
defined in the preamble to the
guidelines as “new dischargers” (rather
than “new sources”) on the basis that
they do not constitute “significant site
preparation”. NSPS do apply to certain
development and production, but not
exploratory. operations.
This will be the first oil and gas
general permit issued by Region 10
incorporating the new effluent
limitation guidelines. Offshore
exploratory oil and gas wastestreams for
which there aze new BAT and BC !’
effluent guidelines include: Drilling
fluids and cuttings. deck drainage.
sanitary waste, and domestic wastes.
This permit Incorporates BAT and BC!’
effluent limitations from the guidelines
for the aforementioned wastestreams
(see also Sections IV and V below).
Based upon EPA’s best professional
judgement. limitations on test fluids
have been established to reflect
guidelines applicable to produced
water.
The new effluent guidelines do not
specifically address other wastestreams
controlled by this permit (e.g..
desalination unit wastes; blowout
preventer fluid; boiler blowdown; fire
control system test water; non-contact
cooling water; uncontaminated ballast
water; uncontaminated bilge water.
azcc se cement sluriy and muds.
cuttings. cement at seafloor). In the
absence of effluent limitation guidelines
for these wastestreams, permit
conditions must be established using
Best Professional Judgeinent (BPfl
proceduree (40 C ’R Sections 122.43,
122.44. and 125.3). As with previous oil
and gas general permits issued by
Region 10. thIs permit incorporates BAT
and BC ! ’ effluent limitations based on
the Agency’s Best Professional
Judgement
As required by Section 304(b)(2)(B) of
the Act, in developing the BPJIBAT
permit conditions, the Agency
considered the age of equipment and
facilities involved, the process
employed, the engineering aspects of
the application of various types of
control techniques, process changes, the
cost of achieving such effluent
reduction, non-water quality
environmental impact (including energy
requirements), and such other factors as
the Director deemed appropriate.
The types of equipment and processes
employed in exploratory drilling
operations are well known to the
Agency. Region 10 has issued numerous
general and individual permits for
exploratory oil and gas operations. The
records for this permit and those earlier
permits thoroughly discuss the types of
equipment, facilities and processes
employed in exploratory drilling
operations.
With regard to the engineering aspects
of the application of various types of
control techniques. there are no BAT
permit limitations based on installation
of control equipment. BAT permit
limitations based on the newly issued
guidelines can be achieved through
product substitution for drilling muds
and cuttings. Any costs of achieving the
effluent limitations and any non-water
quality environmental impacts were
also evaluated by the Agency where the
guidelines are applicable. A discussion
of such evaluations is presented below
with respect to any limitation where
applicable.
As required by Section 304(b)(4)(B) of
the Act, the same factors as in BAT are
considered in determining BC !’ permit
conditions, with one exception. Rather
than considering “the cost of achieving
such effluent reduction.” any BC !’
determination includes “consideration
of the reasonableness of the relationship
between the costs of attaining a
reduction in effluents and the effluent
reduction benefits derived, and the
comparison of the cost end level of
reduction of such pollutants from
publicly owned treatment works to the
cost and level of reduction of such
pollutants from a class or category of
Industrial sources.” BC !’ effluent
limitations cannot be less stringent than
BPT; therefore, if the candidate
industrial technology fails the BC’!’
“cost test”, BC !’ effluent limitations are
set equal to SF!’.
B. Ocean Discharge Criteria
Section 403 of the Act requires that an
NPDES permit for a discharge into
marine waters located seaward of the
Inner boundary of the territorial seas be
Issued in accordance with guidelines for
determining the degradation of the
marine environment, These guidelines.
referred to as the Ocean Discharge
Criteria (40 G’R part 125. subpart Ml.
and section 403 of the Act are intended
to “prevent unreasonable degradation of
the marine environment and to
authorize imposition of effluent
limitations, including a prohibition of
discharge. if necessary, to ensure this
goal.” 145 FR 85942. October 3, 1980)
If EPA determines that the dicrhnrge
will cause unreasonable degradation.
NPDES permit will not be issued. If a
deted mation of unreasonable
depdation cannot be made because
a lack of sufficient information. EPA
must then determine whether a
discharge will cause irreparable harm
the marine environment and whether
there are reasonable alternatives to on
site disposal. To assess the probability
of irreparable harm. EPA is required t
make a determination that the
discharger. operating under appropria
permit conditions, will not cause
permanent and significant harm to th’
environment during a monitoring per.
in which additional information is
gathered. If data gathered through
monitoring indicate that continued
discharge may cause unreasonable
degradation, the discharge must be
halted or additional permit limitation
established.
The Director has concluded that th.
is sufficient information to determine
that exploratory oil and gas facilities
operating under the effluent llmitatio:
and conditions In this general permit
will not cause unreasonable degradati
of the marine environment pursuant
the Ocean Discharge Criteria guidelin
as long as discharge does not occur
shoreward of the 5 meter isobath (Tet
Tech, 1994a) as discussed In Section
V.B.4. of this fact sheet. Conditions
imposed under Section 403(c) of the.
are discussed in Section V. 5.4. below
C. State of Alaska Standards and
limitations
All dlschargers to State waters mus
ensure compliance with water quality
standards and with limitations iznpos
by the state as part of its certification
NPDES permits under Section 401 of
Act. The state waters of the Beaufort
Oiukchi Seas have been classified by
the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC)
marine waters with water use classes
through 2D (water supply; water
recreation; growth and propagatlon 01
fish, shellfish, other aquatic life, and
wildlife; and harvesting for
consumption of raw mollusks or othe
raw aquatic life). In the best professic
judgement of Region 10. the
requirements and discharge limitatio;
in the proposed permit will ensure
compliance with the state water qua!.
standards.
In issuing this permit. EPA has
considered Alaska’s antidegradation
policy (18 AAC 70.010(c)). The
exploratory discharges authorized un
-------
Federal Regt.tmr / VoL 59, No. 181 I Tuesday 1 September 20, 1994/ Notices
48317
this proposed permit are expected to
have inim*I impact becausei
—The relatively short duration of’
exploratory activities,
—The intermittent nature of the
discharges ,
—The limited areal extent of the
discharges relative to the total area of
coverage, and
—The controls placed on the discharges
via the proposed NPDES permit
Given the above, and since the project
is not expected to result in any
violations of state water quality aiteria,
EPA believes the project complies with
the states antldeçadatlon policy.
D. Section 308 of the Coon Water Act
SectIon 308 of the Act and 40 ( R
122.44(1) authorIzes the Director to
require a discharger to conduct
monitoring to determine compliance
with effluent limitations and to assist in
the development of effluent limitations.
EPA has Included several monitoring
requirements In this permit as listed In
the table below in Section V.
IV. Summary of New or ( luing d
Permit Conditions
This section of the fact sheet Is
intended to provide readers with a brief
summary of the parts of the general
permit which are substantively different
from the previous general permits for
offshore oil and gas exploratory
activities in the Beaufort and Chukchl
Seas. For detailed discussion of the
requirements and their bas c please
refer to Section V of this fact sheet.
Many of the new and rhanged -
requirements are a consequence of the
final Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and New Source Perforrn i w Standards
for the Offshore Subcategory of the 011
and Gas Extraction Point Source
Category promulgated by EPA (see 40
QR part 435, subpart A).
Drilling Muds and Drilling Cuttings
—Combination of westesusamar In
acordanr with the yiId4 n ,
drilling muds, drilling c ”tlngs end
washwater have been combined Into a
single discharge waste esm called
drilling fluids and drilling cuttings
(Discharge 001). Washwater had
previously been combined with
drilling cuttings in a separate.
wastestzeam but washwater is now
covered as an intrinsic component of
the drilling muds and cuttings
wasteetream.
Dnrnng PAith arid Oniling C4 gx
Tozioty linid
Nodesel
—Discharge prohibitloam Under Section
403(c) of the Act, discharge of drilling
muds and c”ftings is prohibited to
y $h*IIQWØf than 5 meters depth
In aceordance with computer
modeling done In preparation for this
proposed permit. Previously
discharge had been prohibited in
waters shallower than 2 meters.
—Toxic tyilmit: A toxicity limit of a
minimum of 30.000 ppm suspended
particulate phase (SPP) has been
applied to the discharge in
accoydniir, with the guidelines.
—Oil content: In accordance with the
guidelines, EPA has eliminated the
10% by weight maximum oil
limitation on cuttings In favor of the
no free oil limitation.
—Barfte: EPA has maintained the
limitations on the mercury and
cadmium content of stock bathe but
has eliminated the casa.by.cas.e
waiver option present In previous
permits. This waiver option has been
eliminated to ensure consistency with
the effluent guidelines.
—Mud Plan: EPA has included a
requirement that a mud plan be
developed by operators to encourage
operators to estimate in advance the
toxicity of the drilling muds and
c” tlng , to ensure complI u s ivith
the toxicity limitation. The individual
NPDES permit recently issued to Moo
Alaska for operations in Cook Inlet
timitit , requirement.
—Ares and Seasonal Restrictions: In
addition to several continued
restrIctions, based on SectIon 403(c)
of the Act the proposed permit also
prohibits discharges withIn 3 mIles of
ICasegahik Lagoon and Its passes.
—Environmental monitortng The
requirements for environmental
monitoring are more specific and
detal1e These changes reflect the
current level of specificity present in
other NPDES permits Issued by
Region 10.
Domestic Wastes
—Garbage (‘All other domestic waste”).
Under the Coast Guard Regulations.
discharges of garbage. including
plastica. are prohibited with one
exception. Victual or food waste can
be discharged with restrlàlorzs. This
requirement reflects the new offshore
guidelines (58 FR 12506. March 4,
1993). Several definitions have been
Included to clarify this new effluent
parameter.
Test Fluids
—Oil and gieue Per EPA’s best
professional judgAInant and the new
guidelines, the oil and geese
limitation on test flUIds has been
made more stringent. The limitations
are now 29 mgfl monthly average and
42 mg/! daily maximum.
Discharge Limitations for All
Waste streams
—Rubbish. Trash and Other Refuse: As
proposed the permit will prohibit the
discharge of “garbage” including food
wastes within 12 nautIcal miles of
nearest land. With restrictions,
comatinuted food waste may be
discharged further than 12 nautical
miles from nearest land. Under the
proposed permit these limitations.
which are already effective under the
Coast Guard regulations, will be
incorporated into the Arctic general
permit for consistency purposes.
Best Management Practice Plan -
Requirement
—The proposed general permit requires
permittees to develop and Implement
a Best Management Practices (BMP)
Plan which prevents or minimizes the
generation of pollutants. their release,
and potmittnl reLease from the
permitted facilities to the waters of
the United States.
V. Specific Permit Conditions
A. Approach
The determination of appropriate
conditions for each discharge was
accomplished through:
(1) consideration of technology-based
effluent limitations to control
conventional pollutants under BCT;
(2) consideration of technology-based
effluent limitations to control toxic and
nonconventlonal pollutants under BAT;
and
(3) evaluation of the Ocean Discharge
Criteria for discharges. assuming
conditions in (1) and (2), above, were in
place.
Discussions of the specific effluent
limitations and monitoring
requirements derived bum (1) through
(3) appear below in sections B. through
C. For convenience, these condItions
and the regulatory basis For each are
cross-referenced by discharge In the
following table:
0 cflai e and penes eanenions I “ °“
BAT.
BAT.
-------
48318 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 20, 1994 / Notices
Cadneum & melugy in baste
No free 0 5
,No oil-based muds & cuSings
Cheincal analysis
Inventory
Monitoring volume discharged
Mud plan
Flow rate hn’iitaflons
Depth related bmitatcns
Areaand
Envuorunantal monitoring requirements
Deck Drainage
No free oil
Monitor flow rate ____
Sanitary Wastes:
No floafing solids
Chlorine (facilities 10 people)
Monitor flow rats
Domestic Wastes:
No foam
No ftoabng solids
AS other domesfic waste (gasbage)
Monitor flow rate
Miscellaneous Discharges (as defined in pemit):
No free C d ___ ________
Monitor flow rate
Test Fkadn
pH.
Notreeod —
OS and pease flint ___________
No chschaige oil-based fiwde
vo me
AR Discharges:
No llua*ig solids, foam or oily waste
Sts1xtan Japamw and detargales -
RuSbleh, fresh anti other refuse
Other nooiccnvenitonal peasants -
Best Management Pins.__
Statutory basis
BAT.
BAT, OCT.
BAT, OCT.
Se on 30&
Section 30&
Section 308.
Section 308.
Section 403(c).
Section 403(c).
Section 403(c).
Sect. 403(c), WOS.
BAT, OCT. OPT.
Se on 30&
OCT.
OCT.
Section 308.
BAT.
OCt
BCT.
Section 308.
OCT.
Se n 308.
OCT.
OCT.
BATI8PJ.
BAT.
Sechon 308.
OCT.
BAT.
OCT.
BATI BCT.
4 c e(a)(1).
B. Drilling Muds and Drill Cuttings
The term “drilling fluid” generally
includes all compositions of fluids used
to aid the production and removal of
cuttings (particles from geological
formations) from a borehole in the earth.
The essential functions of drilling fluids
are:
—To carry cuttings to the surface;
—To cool and clean drill bit,
—To reduce Motion In the borehole,
—To maintain pressure balance between
formation and borehole in un” ed
sections of hole, and
—To assist in collection and
intwpi’i tation of information available
from cuttings, cores, electrical logs,.
etc.
All drilling fluids fall into one of
three classes: gas-based (e.g., mist or
foam). water-based, or oil-based. When
the main component of the drilling fluid
is liquid (I.e., water or oil), It Is referred
to as “mud”. All of Region 10’s previous
permits address only the discharge of
muds, as gas fluids aze not used In
Aln kiIn offshore or coastal drilling
operations. As discussed below in
subsections I and 2, the discharge of oil-
based muds (with oil as the continuous
phase and water as the dispersed phase)
Is prohibited because they do not
comply with the no free oil limitation.
The Agency understands that non-
petroleum hydrocarbon organic liquids
are being developed as an alternate to
gas, water or hydrocarbon (e.g., diesel or
mineral) oil-based drilling muds. The
Agency invites comments on the
applicability and feasibility of such
muds to exploratory drilling operations
In the offshore Arctic.
1. BCF Limitations on Drilling Muds
and Cuttings
Free oil and oil-based muds: No
discharge of free oil i.perznitted from
the discharge of drilling mud and drill
cuttings. based upon the guidelines. The
technology basis for this limitation is
substitution of water-based drilling
fluids in place of oil-based muds, non-
petroleum oil-containing additives, and
minimization of the use of mineral oil.
When this substitution is not possible,
the guidelines contemplated that the
technology basis was also transportation
and discharge onshore. Free oil is being
regulated under SAT as an “Indicator”
pollutant for the control of toxic
pollutants. Although It is not a listed
conventional pollutant, as is oil and
grease, free oil Is also limited as a
surrogate for oil and grease under BCI’.
The dlsdiivge of oil-based drilling
fluids is prohibited since discharge of
oil-based fluids would violate the
effluent limitations of no discharge of
free oil.
Compliance with the free oil
limitation will be monitored by use of
the Static Sheen Test (see 40 G’R part
435, appendix no subpart A) daily an
before bulk discharges. Region 10 has
required the use of the Static Sheen Te
In previous permits because visual
observation of the discharge for sheen
upon the receiving water will not
prevent violations of the standard. Thi
test Is also appropriate for the harsh
weather and extended periods of
darkness common in Alaska.
Previous Region 10 permits have
contained an oil content limitation on
drill cuttings. However, this approach
has been rejected in favor of the no frec
oil limitation contained In the
guidelines. As discussed at 56 FR 1068
and 56 FR 10685 (March 13, 1991). the
Discharge and pemet conditlone
U I
seasonal ruquimmenn.. ..... _..___
-------
Federal Register! Vol. 59, No. 181 1 Tuesday. September 20. 1994 / Notices
48319
Agency rejected an oil content
limitation based on cuttings washing
treatment technologies because
limitations on other parameters (diesel
oil, bee oil. end toxicity) are sufficient
to reduce toxics from drilling wastes.
Because the no free oil limitation is
more stringent than the 10% by weight
limitation on the oil content of cuttings.
this change does not invoke
antibacksliding provisions (see 40 CFR
122.44(l)(2)).
2. BAT Limitations on Drilling Muds
and Cuttings
Toxicity: Region 10 is proposing to
incorporate an effluent toxicity limit of
minimum 96-hour LC,o of 30.000 ppm
suspended particulate phase (SPP) on
discharged drilling muds and cuttings.
This limit is designed to bee
technology-based control on toxicity, as
well as toxic and nonconventional
pollutants. The 30,000 ppm SPP
limitation is based on the Agency’s
evaluation that it constitutes an
economically and technically
achievable level of performance and is
both technologically feasible and
economically achievable and reflects
BAT level of control (U.S. EPA. 1993a)
on a national basis. This limitation is
present in the general permit for the
Western Gulf of Mexico (57 FR 54652.
November 19. 1992). Th. toxicity Limit
is also present in a recently issued
individual NPDES permit for ARCO
Alaska operations in Cook Inlet.
The purpose of this limitation is to
encourage the-use of water-based or
other Low toxicity drilling fluids and
additives. This toxicity criterion became
BAT when the final effluent guidelines
were signed lanuary 15. 1993 (58 FR
12469. March 4 1993).
The toxicity limit is an end-of-pipe
discharge limit: and represents a
different approach to controlling this
wastestream than has been applied in
previous general permits issued by
Region 10. When the Region issued its
first general permits under the proposed
guidelines, It developed a case-by-case
approach to limiting the toxicity of
discharged mud/additive systems as BPJ
determination of BAT until guidelines
could be promulgated. Region 10 used
the 30.000 ppm SPP value as a criterion
in evaluating availabLe bioassay data for
the proposed discharges. The process of
evaluating each mud/additive system
with respect to the discharge toxicity
constituted DPI determination of BAT.
Since the guidelines have now been
promulgated with a toxicity limitation
for drilling muds and cuttings. Region
10 will be discontinuing the mud
preapproval process in favor of the end-
of-pipe limitation.
Compliance with the drilling mud
toxicity limit will be determined by
using the Drilling Pluids.Toxicity Test
(see appendix 2 to subpart A of part.435.
58 FR 12507, March 4. 1993). At a
minimum, monitoring is to be done on
a monthly basis for each well. When the
end-of-well is reached, a final bioassay
analysis will be required (see Part -
fl.A.Lk. of p rmit). The last monthly
bioassay may constitute the end-of-well
bioassay. If a mineral oil pill is required
(Part ILA.1.g. hf permit), the mud shall
be ssmpled for bioassay prior to
application of the pill and after removal
of the pill. Complete bioassay reports
are required as part of the regulatory
record for each well.
Diesel oil: The discharge of drilling
muds and cuttings which have been
contaminated by diesel oil is prohibited
by the Agency, in accordance with the
offshore oil and gas effluent guidelines
(58 FR 12469. March 4, 1993). The
prohibition on the discharge of diesel
oil has been part of all of the general
NPDES permits issued by Region 10 for
the Offshore and Coastal Subcategories.
Diesel oil, which is sometimes added to
a water-based mud system. is a complex
mixture of petroleum hydrocarbons.
known to be highly toxic to marine
organisms and to contain numerous
toxic and nonconventional pollutants.
The pollutant “diesel oil” is being used
as an “indicator” of the listeil toxic
pollutants present in diesel oil which
are controlled through compliance with
the effluent limitation (i.e.. no
discharge). The technolägy basis for this
limitation is product substitution of less
toxic mineral oil 16I- diesel oil.
Mezcwy and Cadmium in Bante: In
accordance with the offshore oil and gas
effluent guidelines (58 FR 12469. March
4, 1993). thg,proposed permit contains
limitations of 1 mg/kg mercury and 3
mg/kg cadmium in barite. Barite is a
major constituent of drilling muds.
These restrictions on drilling fluid
Influent are designed to Limit the
discharge of mercury. cadmium, and
other potentially toxic metals in the
drilling fluid effluent, since these metals
can occur as contaminants in some
sources of barite. The justification for
the limitation under BAT is product
substitution or transportation and
disposal of the waste onshore. That is.
operators can substitute ‘clean” barite.
which meets the above limitations, for
contaminated haute, which does not
meet the limitations. Numerous offshore
exploratory wells and the production
wells drilled under permits previously
issued by Region 10 have been drilled
subject to this requirement. Chemical
analyses have shown that the barite
used has no’t exceeded the Limitations.
Further discussion on the mercury and
cadmium limits in barite is presented in
the offshore oil ad gas guidelines (58
FR 12479-80. March 4, 1993) and in the
development document (U.S. EPA.
1993a).
EPA has eliminated a waiver
provision for the barite Limits which
was in the previous permits. The waiver
stipulated that if a permittee was unable
to comply with the barite limitations
due to the lack of availability of barite
which meets the limitation, then the
perinittee could request a case-by-case
waiver allowing the discharge of barite
which exceeded the limits (53 FR
- 37858, September 28. 1988). As a part
of the effluent guidelines development.
EPA investigated the availability of
domestic and foreign supplies of barite
to meet the cadiniwn and mercury
limits. The Agency also considered the.
potential for the increased demand for
clean barite stocks resulting from this
rule to cause a rise in the cost of barite.
(See the Development Document (U.S.
EPA. 1993a) and the Economic Impact
Analysis (U.S. EPA. 1993d) for detailed
discussion on the availability and
economic availability.) EPA concluded
that “there are sufficient supplies of
barite capable of meeting the limits of
this rule to meet the needs of offshore
drilling operations (58 FR 12480. March
4, 1993). Hence, the waiver provision
has not been included in this proposed
general pernhiL
3. Section 308 Documentation and
Monitoring Requirements for Muds and
Cuttings
The following reporting and discharge
monitoring requirements are based on
Section 308 of the Act and 40 CFR
122.44(i). These requirements sane to
determine compliance with, or the
possible future need for, effluent
limitations iii the permit.
—Chemical analysis
—Chemical inventory
—Monitoring volume discharged
—Mud plan
The requirement of a mud plan is new
and is explained below. The first three
requirements have been present in
previous NPDES general permits for all
coastal’ and offshore operations in
Region 10. The chemical analysis
requirement has been expanded to
require analysis of total recoverable -
metal concentration, in addition to total
metal concbntration. Analyses are to be
conducted on split samples. This
requirement has been included to
enable the Agency to better evaluate the
impact of metals in the mud discharges.
Mud Plans: As previously noted.
Region 10 plans to discontinue
-------
48320
Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 20, 1994 I Notices
authorization of mud/additive systems.
Instead EPA is shifting the
responsibility of case ’by-ces.
evaluations from the Region to the
operator. Resources do not allow Region
10 to continue to perform case-by-case
evaluations or to issue discharge
authorizations for each drilling mudi
additive system. Hence, the proposed
permit contains a requirement that the
perimitee develop, have on-site, and
available upon request a plan for
discharge of drilling muds end additives
(hereafter called “mud plan”), This
requirement Is analogous to analyses
that the region has been performing in
development of drilling mud
iuthorizatlons.
The basis for the mud plan
requirement Is Section 308(allA) of the
Act which provides that EPA may
require the permlttee to establish and
maintain records and/or reports that
will assist the Region to detemiine
compliance with other requirements
and effluent limitations of the permit.
The mud plan is one component of the
Best Management Practices Plan (see
Part IL F.44.(4) of the permit). The mud
plan requirement I. also based upon the
Pollution Prevention Ad and Its policy
of prevention, reduction, recycling, and
treatment of wastes (PPA Section
102(b)) through measures which Include
proceesmodlficetlon. materiel.
substitution, and Improvement of
management (WA Section 107(b)(3)).
The goal of requiring development of
a mud plan is to ensure that personnel
on-site are knowledgeable about the
information needed and the methods
required to formulate the mud/additive
systems In order to meet the effluent
toxicity limit Simply put. the mud plan
is intended to be a written guide to
planning for, and using, a mud/additive
system in compliance with the permit
Region 10’s caseby-case approach to
evaluating discharge of mud/additive
systems coupled with use of worst case
cumulative toxicity estimate, as base.
for authorization, baa been conducive to
the discharge of muds with lower
toxicity than elsewhere In the OCS. To
date A 1 ”” 6 ” operators have
demonstrated that thorough plsinnlnfi
and evaluation of mud/additive systems
with respect to possible cumulative
toxicity does consistently result In
discharge of muds that are less toxic
than the 30,000 ppm SPP limit.
The mud plan is intended to
demonstrate that the discharged mud!
additive system for the wall in question
will meet the effluent limit of 30,000
ppm SPP based on the following
dncislon aiterla:
—Estimates of worst case cumulative
discharge toxicity (either calculated or
actual toxicity test results);
—Estimates of toxicity of discharged
mud when a mineral oil pill has been
used; and
—Use of less toxic alternatives where
possible.
The mud plan shall also include a
clearly stated procedure for dealing with
situations in which additives not
originally planned for are needed at the
“last minute.” This procedure should
enable drilling and mud personnel to
determine whether an additive or mud
component may be added to the
circulating mud system without
significant effect upon the discharge
toxicity. Criteria for reaching this type
of “last minute” additive decision shall
be dearly specified in the mud plan.
In addition to developing the mud
plan, the operator is also required to
certify that the mud plan is complete,
on-site, and available upon request (see
Past fl.A.1.f. of the permit).
Certification is due no later than
submission of their written notice of
Intent to commence discharge (see Part
LC. of the permit).
4. Section 403(c) RequIrements for
Muds and Cuttings
Depth-related Resb clions: Additional
restrictions on these discharges are
necessary to ensure no unreasonable
degradation of the environment. The
area of coverage includes water depths
from 5 to about 3,000 meters deep.
Discharge rate limitations on total muds
and cuttings have been established in
the ocean discharge ciiteria evaluation
process in order to allow adequate
dispersion of the discharges. These
maximum rates are:
—-No discharge in waters lees than S
meters deep,
—500 bbl/hr Tot discharges into waters
greater than 5 meters but not more
than 20 meters in depth.
—750 bbl/hr for discharges Into waters
greater than 20 meters but not more
than 40 meters in depth, and
—1,000 bbl/hr for discharges into waters
greater than 40 meters in depth.
These limits are necessary because for
any given discharge rate, the dilution of
drill lngmuds and cuttings is not as
great In shallow waters as In deeper
waters. However, at any particular water
depth. greater dilution close to the
discharge point will be achieved with a
lower discharge rate. These maximum
rates wiU ensure that the water quality
standards will not be exceeded at the
edge of the 100 meters mixing zone
(Tetra Tech. 1994a).
Previous permits have allowed the
discharge of drilling muds and cuttings
between 2 and 5 meters depth.
However, compute? modeling of the
dispersion of the drilling muds
conducted for this permit in 2—3 meters
depth did not perform adequately (Tetr
Tech. 1994a). The maximum depth of
mud accumulation for these cases was
10-20 times greater than the waterS
depth. Mud accumulations of this
magnitude would effectively bury the
drilling mud outfall, making any
calculation of dilution values
meaningless. Accordingly, EPA is
proposing zero discharge of muds and
cuttings in waters less than 5 meters
deep. -
Meal Restz ctions: Discharge of mud:
and cuttings are prohibited in the
following four areas:
(a) Between the shore (mainland and
barrier islands) and the 5 meters
isobath,
(b)within 1000 meters of river
mouths or deltas during unstable or
broken Ice or open water conditions.
(c) Within 1000 meters of the
Stefansson Sound Boulder Patch, and
Id) Within 3 miles of lCasegaluk
Lagoon or the passes of Kasegaluk
Lagoon.
For the specific requirements. see
Parts ll.A3. of the permit In accordanc
with 40 R 125.123 (C), the DIrector
has prohibited these discharges becaus
the Region has determined they may
cause unreasonable degibdation of the
marine environment. Prohibition (a) ha
changed from previous permits as
desaibed in the previous section of thi
fact sheet Prohibitions (hi and (ci are
contained in the previous Beaufort Sea
NPDES general permits (49 FR 23734.
June 7, 1984 and 53 FR 37848,
September 28. 1988). This is the first
time that a provision concerning
Kasegaluk Lagoon has been included Li
a general permit for offshore oil end ga
exploration since the area has never
been covered by an NPDES permit for
exploratory oil and gas operations.
With regard to (a) and (hi above, EP
has extensively studied the nearshore
zone of the I 6’ i Beaufort Sea in
several Ocean Discharge Criteria
Evaluations (Tetra Tech. 1994a; Jones S
Stokes, 1983,1984). These evaluations
have clearly shown that these nearshor
areas provide Important feeding and
migratory habitat for a large number of
species including fish, waterfowl, and
mammals. Further, these areas provide
essential feeding and preferred habitat
for species of major importance for
subsistence and commercial fisheries.
Concerning (c) above, the proposed
permit does not authorize discharges
within 1000 meters of the Stefansson
Sound Boulder Patch as defined by
Dunton et al. (1982). The “Patch” Is a
-------
Federal Register I VoL 59. No. 181 I Tuesday. September 20. 1994 / Notices
48321
rare and unique bfolog*cal community
that is susceptible to adverse effects
caused by di hiivged drilling muds and
cuttings.
As noted In (d) above, the proposed
permit restricts activity near Kasegaluk
Lagoon and its barrier island system.
Specifically discharge is prohibited
within Kasegaluk Lagoon and in the
waters within 3 miles of the following
passes intensively used by the beluga
whales; Kukpowruk Pass, Akunik Pass.
Utukok Pass, Icy Cape Pass. and
Alokiakatat Pass. This restriction is in
accordance with the North Slope
Borough’s Coastal Management Program
(NSB. 1988). The NSB recognizes
Kasegaluk Lagoon as a Candidate Area
Meriting Special Attention (AMSA) and
imposes the above restrictions.
Kasegaluk Lagoon extends for
approximately 140 miles along the
Chukchi Sea coast. About 90 miles of’
the lagoon is south of Icy Cape and the
rest is north of Icy Cape. Kasegaluk
Lagoon is located in state waters of the
Chukchi Sea and provides important
habitat for spotted seals and beluga
whales. Beluga whales are known to
feed, calve and may molt in this lagoon
(North Slope Borough. 1988; Frost and
Lowry. 1993: Tetra Tech. 1994a).
Spotted seals also calve in Kasegaluk
Lagoon (NSB, 1988). The lagoon also
provides important feeding. migrating.
and rearing areas for marine and
anadromous fish, as well as migratory
birds.
ICasegaluk Lagoon, the barrier islands,
and the nearshore waters seaward of the
barrier lslan are an important
subsistence area for the villagers of
Point Lay (NSB, 1988). Subsistence
activities that occur seasonally in the
Kasegaluk Lagoon Candidate AMSA
area include egg gathering, waterfowl
hunting, sealing, fishing, walrus
hunting, and whaling for belugas. This
proposed permit and the Borough’s
management program recognizes the
importance of the area for marine
mammals, seablrds, and subsistence
activities.
Environmental Monitoring:
Environmental monitoring is required in
two areas which are of particular
concern to Region 10: discharge of
drilling muds and cuttings below-ice to
water depths shallower than 20 meters
and within 1000 meters of an area of
biological concern (i.e.. a unique
biological community or habitat). The
Director has determined that controlled
discharges to these areas, in accordance
with 40 R 125.123(a) and the
limitations and conditions in the draft
permit. will not cause unreasonable
degradation of the marine environment.
Environmental monitoring is required to
verify that discharges to these areas will
not produce conditions in the future
that would lead to unreasonable
degradation.
C Deck Drainage (Discharge 002)’
Deck drainage includes all waste
resulting from deck washings, spillage,
rainwater, and run-off from gutters and
drains including drip pans and work
areas. Oil nd grease are the primary
pollutants identified in deck drainage.
In addition to oil, various other
chemicals used in drilling operations
may be present. Specific conventional.
toxic. and non-conventional pollutants
found in deck drainage are controlled by
the prohibition on the discharge of free
oil. Deck drainage discharges are not
continuous and can vary significantly in
voiwne.
Free oil: EPA is controlling pollutants
found in deck drainage by the
prohibition on the discharge of free oil.
This limit is the current BPT level of
control and is also the appropriate level
of control under BCI’ and BAT. No free
oil is permitted from the discharge of
deck drainage in accordance with the
offshore oil and gas effluent guidelines
(58 FR 12506. March 4. 1993). Deck
drainage was subject to this limitation
in the previous permits issued’by
Region 10 and past practices have not
zesultedin violations of this limit.
Compliance with the free oil
.limitation for deck drainage will be by
visual observation for a sheen on the
receiving water as mandated by the
offshore oil and gas guidelines :8 FR
12506. March 4, 1993). except under the
conditions described below. The Static
Sheen Test will also be required for the
monitoring bf deck drainage during
unstable or broken ice and stable ice
conditions. Use of the Static Sheen Test
will prevent a violation of the free oil
limitation in those discharges most
likely to be contaminated with oil. This
would not be possible with an after-the-
fact visual observation of a sheen on the
receiving water. This requirement in
similar to requirements in the Region’s
previous permits and will not result in
any additional costs to the industry.
flow Rate: Flow rate is required to be
estimated monthly. The basis for this
requirement is Section 308 of the Act.
D. Sanitary Wastes (Discharge 003)
The sanitary wastes from offshore oil
and gas facilities are made up of human
body wastes from the toilets and urinals.
The volume and concentrations of these
wastes vary widely with time.
occupancy. platform characteristics, and
operational status (U.S. EPA. 1993a).
Floating Solids: The prohibition on
floating solids is mandated by the
offshore oil and gas guidelines for
facilities intermittently manned or
continuously manned by fewer than 10
persons (58 FR 12470, March 4, 1993).
This requirement does not specifically
apply to facilities continuously manned
by 10 or more persons (however, the
method of compliance with the residual
chlorine limit effectively limits floating
solids for these facilities). Since
previous permits for exploratory
operations in the Beaufort and Chukchi
Seas have prohibited th discharge of
floating solids for all facilities regardless
of staffing. Region 10 is continuing the
requirement in this permit based upon
antibacksliding provisions (40 CFR
122.44(11(2)1. This BC’!’ prohibition on
the discharge of floating solids as
equivalent to the current level of control
for sanitary wastes in previous permits.
Residual Chlorine: Chlorine is
regulated by the Agency in the offshore
oil and gas effluent guidelines as a
conventional pollutant. Chlorine is
added to the wastestream to control
fecal coliforms in the discharge.
Facilities continuously manned by 10 or
more persons are requued to have a
residual chlorine content of 1 milligram
per liter (and maintained as close to the
limit as possible). This limitation has
been in previous Region 10 permits and
is in-the proposed permit as well.
For facilities with fewer than 10
persons or intermittently staffed by any
number of persons (i.e., M91M
facilities), the proposed permit prohibits
the discharge of floating solids only.
with no chlorine limitation.
E. Domestic Wastes (Discharge 004)
Domestic wastes refers to materials
discharged from sinks, showers.
laundries, safety showers, eyewash
stations, and galleys. Because domestic
wastes do not contain focal coliform.
chlorination is not required.
Floating Solids: Under BC’!’. EPA is
prohibiting the discharge of floating
solids. The limitation is included in the
offshore oil and gas guidelines (58 FR
12487. March 4. 1993) and is equivalent
to the current level of control for
sanitary wastes in the previous permits.
Visible Foam: Discharges of visible
foam are prohibited under BAT in the
offshore oil and gas guidelines (58 FR
12487, March 4. 1993). This limitation
is equivalent to the current level of
control for domestic wastes in existing
permits and past practices have not
resulted in violations of this limitation.
All other domestic waste: This permit
includes requirements limiting the
discharge of all other domestic waste
(garbage) as included in U.S. Coast
Guard regulations at 33 R part 151.
These limitations are a new feature in
-------
48322
Federal Register / Vol 59, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 20. 1994 / Notices
EPA offshore oil and gas permits for
Beaufozt and Chukcbi Seas operators
and reflect the offshore oil and gas
effluent guidelines (58 FR 12487, March
4. 1993). The requirements on garbage
are currently induded in the most
recent reissuance of the Western Gulf of
Mexico general permit (57 FR 54654,
November 19. 1992).
As proposed. the reissued permit will
prohibit the discharge of garbage
including food wastes within 12
nautical miles from nearest land.
Comminuted food waste which is able
to pass through a screen with a mesh
size no larger than 25 mm
(approximately 1 inch) may be
* discharged 12 or more nautical miles
from nearest land. Inaneratlon ash and
non-plastic &94nknr that can pass
through a 25 mm mesh screen may be
discharged beyond 3 miles from nearest
land, otherwise ash and non-plastic
clinkers can only be discha’ged beyond
12 nautical miles from nearest land.
Since this BC limitation already
exists in Coast Guard regulations and
other NPDES permits. it will not result
in any additional compliance cost, or
additional non-water quality
environmental Impacts. There are no
incremental costs associated with the
limitation.
F. Miscellaneous Discharges:
Desalination unit wastes (005),
blowout preventer fluid (006), boiler
blowdowu (007),-flre control system test
water (008), non-contact cooling water
(009). uncontniniiiated ballast water
(010), uncontrnninated bilge water (011),
excess cement slurry (012), and mud,
cuttings, and cement at the seafloor
(013).
No free oil: Region 10 has determined
that no free oil shall be discharged. The
no free oil limitation is Region 10’s best
professional ludgement determination of
BPT controls for these d1wh iges.
Compliance with the free oil limitation
for mi llaneoua discharges will be by
visual observation fore sheen on the
receiving water. e ept far bilge water
under the conditions described below.
All of these discharges have been
subject to this limitation in the previous
permits issued by Region 10 and past
practices have not resulted in violations
of this limit.
G. Discharge 014 (Test Fluids)
Limited volumes of formation waters
which are encountered during testing of
the well are authorized for discharge as
test fluids. Formation waters are
encountered during well testing and are
similar in composition to produced
waters.
Free oil: As previously discussed, no
discharge of free oil is permitted from
discharges authorized by this permit. In
previous general permits, Region 10 has
determined that the BCI ’ effluent
limitations guideline of no discharge of
free oil from the discharge of deck
drainage, drilling muds, drill cuttings,
and well treatment fluids should apply
to other discharges, including test
fluids. The no free oil limitation is
Region 10’s best professional judgeinent
determination of BC controls for the
test fluids discharge. Operators have
been subject to a no free oil limitation
in previous permits issued by Region
10, and past practices have not resulted
in violations of this limitation. In
accordance with Section 308, the Static
Sheen Test will be required for the
monitoring of test fluids.
Oil and grease: Although oil and
grease is a conventional pollutant
subject to BCr, It also serves as BAT
(i.e., as an Indicator of toxic pollutants)
for produced water. Specifically. the
toxic pollutants which are controlled by
limiting oil and grease include phenol,
naphthalene, ethylbenzene. and toluene
(U.S. EPA 1993a). EPA has determined
that it is not technically feasible to
control these toxic pollutants
Individually so that the limitation on oil
and grease cenuols discharge these
pollutants in produced water at the BAT
level (U.S. EPA 1993a).
The promulgated BAT for oil and
grease in produced water as 29 mg/i
monthly average and 42 mg/I daily
ma dmwn based upon the improved
operating performance of gas flotation
technology (58 FR 12508, March 4,
1993). Based upon the chemical
similarity of test fluids and produced
water, Region 10 Agency has
determined that it is reasonable to apply
the produced water provisions to test
fluids. Accordingly, the proposed
permit limits on oil and grease in test
fluids are 29mg/i monthly average and
42mg/I daily maximum.
pK The pH of discharged test fluids
(which may have a substantially
different pH from that of the ambient
receiving water) has been limited to a
range of 6.5-8.5 at the point of
dbcharge. In Region 10’s best
professional ludgement. this limitation
appropriately equals a BPT level of
control. No more stringent standard has
been identified by.the Region at this
time. Therefore, Region 10 is setting a
acr effluent limitation for the pH of test
fluids equal to that of BPT. This
limitation will ensure that pH changes
greater than 0.2 pH unit will not occur
beyond the edge of the 100-meter
mixing zone 140 CFR § 125.121(c)). This
requirement has been and is routinely
complied with by operations under
previous BFI ’ permits and thus, reflects
no cost incremental to BFr.
H. Other Discharge Limitations
No Floating Solids, or Visible Foam.
or Oily Wastes: Region 10 has
determined that the BCI’ emuent
limitations guideline of no discharge of
floating solids from the discharge of
sanitary wastes should apply to all other
discharges as well. Operators have been
subject to a visible foam lImit and an
oily waste limit in previous permits
issued by Region 10 and past practices
have not resulted in violations.
Surfactants, Dispersants. and
Detergents: The draft permit contains a
provision that the discharge of
surfactants, dispersants. and detergents
shall be minimized except as necessary
to comply with the safety requirements
of the Occupational Health and Safety
Administration and the Minerals
Management Service. These products
contain primarily nonconventional
pollutants. This provision previously
appeared in the permits for the Beaufor
Sea, Chukchi Sea, Norton Sound, Berin .
Sea, and Cook Inlet.
Rubbish, Trash, or Other Refuse: The
discharge of any solid material not
authorized by this permit (as described
above) Is prohibited. This permit
includes limitations set forth by the U.S
Coast Guard in 33 Q R part 151 for
domestic waste disposal from all fixed
or floating offshore platforms apd
associated vessels engaged in
exploration of seabed mineral resources
These limitations, as specified by
Congress apply to all navigable waters
of the United States.
This permit prohibits the discharge of
“garbage” including food wastes. withir
12 nautical miles from nearest land.
Comminuted food waste (able to pass
through a sceen with a mesh size larger
than 25 mm, approximately 1 inch) may
be discharged from operations located
12 nautIcal miles or more from land.
Graywater. drainage from dishwater,
shower, laundry, bath and washbasins
are not considered “garbagw’ within the
meaning of the Coast Guard regulations.
Incineration ash and non-plastic
clinkers that can pass through a 25 mm
mesh screen may be discharged greater
than 3 miles from the nearest land;
otherwise, ash and non.plastic clinkers
can only be discharged beyond 12
nautical miles from nearest land.
Other Toxic and Non-conventional
Compounds: Under the proposed
permit, prohibitions on discharges of
the following pollutants are retained:
halogonated phenol compounds.
trisodium nitrilotriacetic acid, sodium
chromate, and sodium dichromate. The
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No.181 / Tuesday . September 20, 1994 / Notices
48323
class of halogenated phenol compounds
includes toxic pollutants, and sodium
chromate and sodium dichromate
contain chromium, also a toxic
pollutant Trisodium nitrilotriacetic
acid is a nonconventional. pollutant. The
discharge of these compounds was
previously prohibited in the general
permits for the Beaufort Sea. Chukchi
Sea. Norton Sound. Bering Sea. and
Cook Inlet.
1. Best Management Practice Plan
Requirement
It is national policy that, whenever
feasible, pollution should be prevented
or reduced at the source, that pollution
which cannot be prevented should be
recycled in an environmentally safe
manner, and that disposal or release
into the environment should be
employed only as a last resort and
should be conducted in an
environmentally safe manner (Polluti6n
Prevention Act of 1990.42 U.S.C.
13101). SectIon 402(a)(1) authorizes
EPA to include miscellaneous
requirements in permits on a case-by-
case basis which aie deemed necessary
to carry out the provisions of the Act.
Best Management Practices (BMPs), in
addition to numerical effluent
limitations, are required to controL or
abate the discharge of pollutants in-
accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(k).
Pursuant to Section 402(a)(1) of the
Clean Water Act and Region 10 policy
(EPA Region 10, 1992), development
and implementation of a Best
Management-Practices Plan is included
as a condition of this NPDES general
permit.
The proposed general permit requires
the development and implementation of
a BMP Plan which prevents or.
minimizes the generation of pollutants.
their release, and/or potential release
from the facility to the waters of the
United States through normal
operations and ancillary activities.
Relevant operations and activities
include material storage areas, site
runoff, storm water, in-plant transfer.
process and material handling areas,
loading or unloading operations.
spillage or leaks, sludge and waste
disposal, or drainage from raw material
storage.
In addition to developing and
implementing the BMP Plan, the
operator Is also required to certify that
the BMP Plan is complete. on-site, and
available upon request (see Part ILF.1. of
the permit). Certification is required no
later than submission of their written
notice of intent to commence discharge
(see Part LC. of the permit). These
certification requirements are similar to
the requirements for a mud plan.
The BMP Plan must be amended
whenever there is a change in the
facility or in the operation of the facility
which materially increases the potential
for an increased discharge of pollutants.
The BMP Plan will become an
enforceable condition of the permit: a
violation of the BMP Plan is a violation
of the permit.
VI. Other, legal Requirements
A. Oil Spill Requirements
Section 311 of the Act prohibits the
discharge of oil and hazardous materials
in harmful quantities. Routine
discharges specifically controlled by the
permit are excluded from the provisions
of Section 311. However, this permit
does not preclude the institution of legal
action or relieve perrnittees from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties
for other, unauthorized discharges of oil
and hazardous materials which are
covered by Section 311 of the Act.
B. Endangered Species Act -
The Endangered Species Act (ESA)
allocates authority to and administers
requirements upon Federal agencies
regarding endangered species of fish.
wildlife, or plants and habitat of such
species that have been designated as
critical. Its implementing regulations
(50 G ’R Pazt 402) require EPA to ensure.
in consultation with the Secretary of the
Interior or Commerce. that any action
authorized, funded or carried out by
EPA is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species or adversely affect
its critical habitat. (40 Q ’R 122.49(c)).
In compliance with Section 7 of the
ESA. an endangered species list was
requested by EPA and received from
both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWST nd the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) for the
affected area. The following threatened,
endangered and/or candidate species
are reported to potentially occur in the
vicinity of the discharges associated
with oil and gas operations proposed by
the permit: arctic peregrine falcon,
spectacled eider, stellars eider. and
bo.whead whale.
A draft biological evaluation was
prepared by Tetra Tech under contract’
to EPA to determine whether the
discharges authorized by this proposed
general permit are likely to adversely
affect any endangered or threatened
species or its critical habitat (Tetra
Tech. 1994b). Based upon the available
information, it is not expected that the.
exploratory oil and gas permitted
discharges and related activities will not
adversely affect any of the listed species
or their l bitat.
EPA has informally consulted with
the USFWS and the NMFS pursuant to
SectIon 7 consultation of the
Endangered Species Act. The EPA
shared the draft biological evaluation
with USFWS at their request. Comments
raised by the USFWS have been
addressed. EPA has forwarded the
revised document to both Services for
their review. EPA will consider the
Services’ comments in developing the
final permit.
C. Coastal Zone Management Act
EPA has determined that the activities
authorized by this general permit are
consistent with local and state Coastal
Management Plans. The proposed
permit and consistency determination
will be submitted to the State of Alaska
for state interagency review at the time
of public notice. The requirements for
State Coastal Zone Management Review
and approval must be satisfied before
the general permit may be issued.
D. Marine Protection. Research and
Sanctuaries Act
No marine sanctuaries as designated
by this Act exist in the vicinity of the
permit areas. -
E. State Water Quality Standards and
State Certification
Since state waters are involved in the
proposed general permit area, the
provisions of SectIon 401 of the Act
apply. In accordance with 40 R
124.1O(cU1). public notice of the draft
permit has been provided to the State of
Alaska agencies having jurisdiction over
fish, shellfish, and wildlife resources
(see section U.C. above).
F. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this action from the
review requirements of Executive Order
12866 pursuant to Section 8(b) of that
order.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements
imposed on regulated facilities in this
draft general permit under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
USC 3501 et seq. Most of the
information collection requirements
have already been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget
(0MB) in submissions made for the
NPDES permit program under the
provisions of the Clean Water Act. In
addition, the environmental monitoring
requirements pursuant to Section 403(c)
of the Clean Water Act in Part fl.B.4 of
this permit are similar to the monitoring
requirements that were approved by
0MB for the previously issued Beautort
a
-------
48324
Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 20, 1994 / Notices
Sea II and Cliukchi Sea general permits
(September 28. 1988,53 FR 37846) and
the modification of the Beaufort Sea II
NPDES general permit (September 27.
1989.54 FR 39574). The final general
permit will explain how the information
collection requirements respond to any
0MB or public comments.
H. The Regulator,’ Flexibility Act
After review of the facts presented in
the notice of intent printed above, I
hereby certify, pursuant to the
provisions of 5 USC 605(b). that this
general permit will not have a
significant Impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This
certification is based on the fact that the
regulated parties have greater than 500
employees and are not classified as
small businesses under the Small
Business Administration regulations
established at 49 FR 5024 øt seq.
(February 9,1984). These facilities are
classified as Major Group 13—Oil and
Gas Extraction SIC 1311 Crude
Petroleum and Natural Gas.
Dated: August 31. 1994.
Chuck Clarke,
Re9jonalAdministrntbr. Region 10.
Bigham. C. L. Horosby. and C. Wlens. 1984.
Technical support document for regulating
dilution and deposition of dri Wag muds
on the Outer Continental ShelL Prepared
for U.S. Environmental Prot ctlon Agency,
Region 10, and Jones and Stokes
A. e ates, Bellevue, WA. byTetra Tech,
Inc. November 1984.88 pp. plus
appendices.
Dunton. I C .. K. Reimnltz, and S. Schoaberg.
1982. An arctic kelp community in the
Alaskan Beaufort Sea. ArctIc 35(4): 465-
484.
Frost, K. ). and I.?. Lowiy. 1993. Dlsmbutlon
and Abundance of Beluga Whales and
Spotted Seals In the Chukchi Sea.
Including Recent Findings at Kasegaluk
Lagoon. In. Alaska OCS Region Fifth
Ialbnnatlon Transfer Meeting Conference
Proceedings. U.S. Dept. of the Interior.
Minerals Manhgrnant Service. OCS Study
MMS 93—0043.
Jones & Stokes i’ tes. 1983. Final ocean
discharge oriterl a evaluation. Diapir Field.
OCS lease sale 71. Prep d far U.S.
Environmental Ptutecticn Agency. Region
10. March 21. 1983.160 pp. plus
appendices.
Jones a Stokes Associates. 1984. FInal ocean
discharge oriterla evaluation. Diapir Field.
0(3 lease sale 81 and state lease sales 39,
43. and 43a. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Region
10. July 24.1984. 137 pp. pIus appendices.
North Slope Borough. 1988. North Slope
Borough Coastal Management Program.
Tetra Tech. Inc. 1994e. Ocean discharge
arteria evaluation for Arctic state and
federal waters. Draft. Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. July
1994.
Tetra Tech. Inc. 1994b. E cb of oil and gas
exploration activities In the area of
coverag, under the Arctic NPDES General
Permit on threatened and endangered
species. Draft. Prepared for the U.S 1
Environmental Protection Agency. March
1994. Revised by EPA on 8/8/94.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1992. Outer
Continental Shelf Natural Gas and Oil
Resource Management: Comprehensive
Program (1992—1997). Proposed FinaL
Minerals Management Service.
U.S. EPA. 1984. FInal General NPDES
Permits for Cli and Gas Operations on the
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) arid in State
Waters of AI t k . Bering Sea and Beaufort
Sea: Notice. (49 FR 23734. June 7, 1984).
U.S. EPA. 1985. Assessment of
environmental fate and effects of
discharges from offshore oil and gas
operations. EPA 440/4-85/002.
U.S. EPA. 1988. FInal General NPDES
Permits for Oil and Gas Operations on the
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of Alaskar
Beaulort Sea II and Cbukchl Sea; Notice.
(53 FR 37846. September 28.1988).
U.S. EPA. 1989. FInal Modifications of the
NPDES General Permit for Oil and Gas
Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf
(CCSJ and State Waters of Alaska: Beaufort
Sea II. (54 FR39574. September 27, 1989).
U.S. EPA. 1993a. Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New
Source Perfor ..ire Standards for the
Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and Gas
Extraction Point Source Category FinaL
Office of Water. EPA 821-R-93-003.
U.S. EPA. 1993h. 40 R Part 138. OIl and
gas extraction point source category
offshore suLat , . , , effluent limitations
guidelines and new marco performance
standards. (58 FR 12454. March 4. 1993).
U.S. EPA. 1993c. Response to Public
on Proposed Effluent
LImitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the O hore
Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction
Point Source Category (January 15.1993).
Offshore Rulemaking Record Docwnent
No. VIILB.(3)1. Volumes 151. 152. and 154
(Excerpts only). -
U.S. EPA. 1993d. Economic Impact Analysis
of Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards of Performance for the
Offshore 011 and Gas Industry. Office of
Water. EPA—82 1—R—93—003.
U.S. EPA. Region 10.1992. Region 10
Guldancr. Best Management Practices
Plans in NPDES Permits. June 1992.
(FR Doc. 94—23419 Flied 9—19-94:8:45 antI
000* P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATiONS
COMMISSION
(ReportNo.2)
A Petition for Reconsideration of
Actions In Rulemaking Proceedings
September 15. 2994.
A Petition for reconsideratron has
been filed with respect to the
Commission’s Order listed below. The
full text of this document is available for
viewing and copying in Room 616,1919
M Street. NW., Washington. DC. by
contacting Donna Viert ((202)418—
1725). In addition, copies may be
purchased from the Commission ’s copy
contractor. ITS. Inc. ((202) 857—3800).
Oppositions to this petition for
reconsideration must be filed by
October 5, 1994. See Section 1.4(b) of
the Commission’s Rules (47 CFR
1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must
be filed within 10 days after the time for
filing oppositions has expired.
Subject: Specifications as to Pleadings
and Documents; Amendment of Section
1.49 of the Commission’s Rule (FCC 94—
181),.
Filed 8y David B. Popkin on August
10. 1994.
Action by the General Counsel.
Federal Communications C in.inission.
William F. Catoit,
Acting Secietruy.
(FR Doc. 94—23208 Filed 9—29—94:8:45 am!
U ILUNO COOS 12-OI -M
FEDERAL MARITiME COMMISSION
Security for th Protection of the
Public Indemnification of Passengers
for Nonperformanc. of Tmnsportetlon;
Issuance of Certificate (Performance)
Notice is hereby given that the
following have been issued a certificate
of Financial Responsibility for
Indemnification of Passengers for
Nonperformance of Transportation
pursuant to the provisions of Section 3,
Public Law 89-777(46 U.S.C. 817(e))
and the Federal Maritime Commission’s
implernentln regulations at 46 CFR Part
540. as meuded:
Holland America LIne—Westours, Inc. (d/b!
a Holland America Line) and HAL Antillen
NV., 300 Elliott Avenue West. Seattle.
Wnshington 98119
Vesselsi
NIEUW AMSTERDAM
NOORDAM -
RijrrrjcDAM
Holland America Une—Westours. Inc. Id/b!
a Holland America Line). HAL Shipping
Lid. and HAL Antillen N.y.. 300 Elliott
Avenue West. Seattle. Washington 98119
Vessel: WESTERDAM
Holland America Llne—Westours, Inc. Id/b!
a Wlndstar Cruises). Wind Star Limited,
Wlndstar Sail Cruises Limited and HAL
Antilles N.y., 300 EllIott Avenue West.
Seattle. Washington 98119
Vessel: WIND STAR \
Holland America LIne—.Westours. Inc. Id/b!
a Holland America Line). HAL Cruises
Limited, Wind Surf Limited end HAL
Antillea N.y., 300 EllIott Avenue West,
Seattle. Washington 98119
-------
Tuesday
August 9, 1994
Partli
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 125
Discharges Into Marine Waters;
Modification of Secondary Treatment
Requirements; Final Rule
I
i 3
-------
40642 Federal Register F Vol. 59. No. 152 / Tuesday. August 9. 1994 I Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
4OCFRPaitI25
(FRL-6025-7 )
Modification of Secondary Treatment
Requirements for Discharges Into
Marine Waters
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating final
amendments to the regulations
contained in 40 CFR part 125. subpart
G. which implement section 301(h) of
the Clean Water Act ( “C’ VA” or ‘Act”),
33 U.S.C. section 1311(h). Section
30 1(h) provides for modifications of
secondary treatment requirements for
discharges into marine waters by
publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) that demonstrate their
compliance with the section 301(h)
criteria. These regulatory revisions are
being promulgated to respond to the
amendments to section 301(h) contained
in section 303 of the Water Quality Act
of 1987 (“WQA”) and to reflect program
experience. These amendments revise
portions of the existing part 125, subpart
C. regulations and simplify and revise
the application requirements contained
in AppendicesAandBof subpart C.
DATES Effective Date: These regulations
take effect on September 8. 1994.
Promulgation Dates In accord nre
with 40 CFR 23.2. the Administrator’s
promulgation occurs at 1:00 p.m. EDT
on August 23. 1994.
AOOR S8F Copies of comments
submitted and the docket for this
rulemaking are available for review at
EPA ’s Water Docket: Room L-102. 401
M St., SW.. Washington. DC 20460. For
access to the Docket materials, call (202)
260—3027 between 9a.m. and 3:30 p.m.
for an appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMAtION CONTACT:
Virginia Fox-Norse. Oceans and Coastal
Protection Division (4504F), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street, SW. Washington. DC 20460.
(202) 260—8448. An amended Technical
Support Document ( ISO) has been
prepared to provide guidance for
preparing applications and complying
with provisions of the regulations. This
amended ISO completely supersedes
the 1982 revised section 301(h) TSD.
and will be available soon after these
regulations are published in the Federal
Register. Requests for the amended TSD
should be made to Virginia FoxNorse at
the address given in this section.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Outline
I. Background
A. History of the section 301(h) Program
a Water Quality Act Amendments of 1987
C. Overview of Public Comments
D. Summary of Changes Made from the
1991 Proposal
II. Section by Section Analysis
Ill. Supporting Documentation
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
B. Executive Order 12291
C Paperwork Reduction Act
L Background
A. History of the Section 301(h) Program
Under section 301(b)(1)(B) of the
Clean Water Act of 1972 (hereinafter
CWA or Act) (33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(B)).
POTWs were required to achieve
secondary treatment by July 1, 1977.
The secondary treatment requirements
establish technology-based effluent
limitations for biochemical oxygen
demand (BOO), suspended solids (SS).
and pH. See -40 CFR part 133. Some
municipalities with POTWs that
discharged into marine waters argued
that secondary treatment might not be
necessary to protect certain marine
waters where deeper waters with large
tides and currents can allow for greater
dilution and dispersion than discharges
into fresh waters. As a result. Congress
amended the CWA in 1977 to add
section 301(h), 33 U.S.C. 1311(h), to
allow the Administrator, upon
application by a P01W and with the
concurrence of the State, to Issue a
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit
that modifies the secondary treatment
requirements of section 30l(b)(1)(B). In
order to obtain a section 301(h) waiver.
the applicant must demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that the
proposed discharge complies with a set
of criteria intended to protect the
marine environment. In addition,
section 301(j)(1)(A) of the Act
established a deadline for filing a
section 301(h) application. EPA
regulations and an accompanying
technical support document (TSD) to
implement the section 301(h) program
were issued in 1979. (44 FR 34784, June
15. 1979.)
SectIon 301(h) was later amended by
the Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Construction Grants Amendments
(MWTCGA) of 1981 (Pub. L 97—117. 95
Stat. 1623). The MWTCGA extended the
deadline for filing section 301(h)
applications to December 29. 1982, and
modified applicant eligibility
requirements. In response to the
MWI ”CGA and program experience, the
section 301(h) regulations and the TSD
were revised in 1982. (See 47 FR 24918.
June 8, 1982. and 47 FR 53666,
November 26. 1982.)
B. Water Quality Act Amendments of
1987
On February 4. 1987. Congress passed
the Water Quality Act of 1987 (Pub. L.
100—4, hereinafter WQA), further
amending section 30 1(h) of the CWA.
Section 303 of the WQA. which
contains the amendments to section
301(h). made the following changes to
section 301(h) of the CWA:
(1) The discharge of pollutants. in
accordance with modified requirements.
cannot interfere, alone or in
combination with pollutants from other
sources, with the attainment or
maintenance of water quality which
assures the protection of the resources
and uses listed in CWA section
3 01(h)(2).
(2) The scope of required monitoring
is limited to only those scientific
investigations necessary to study the
effects of the proposed discharge.
(3) For POTWs serving a population
of 50,000 or more, with respect to any
toxic pollutant introduced by an
industrial source for which pollutant
there is no applicable pretreatment
requirement in effect, the applicant
must demonstrate that sources
introducing waste into the POTW are in
compliance with all applicable
pretreatment requirements, the
applicant will enforce those
requirements. and the applicant has in
effect a pretreatment program which, in
combination with the treatment of
discharges from the P01W, removes the
same amount of such toxic pollutant as
would be removed if the P01W were to
apply secondary treatment and had no
pretreatment program for such
pollutant. (For purposes of this
preamble, this requirement will be
referred to as the “urban area
pretreatment requirement”).
(4) At the time the section 302(h)
modification becomes effective, the
applicant will be discharging effluent
which has received at least primary or
equivalent treatment and which meets
water quality criteria established under
CWA section 304(a)(1) after initial
mixing in the waters surrounding or
adjacent to the point at which the
effluent is discharged. The statutory
amendments define primary or
equivalent treatment as treatment by
screening, sedimentation. and skimming
adequate to remove at least 30 percent
each of BOO and of SS, and
disinfection, where appropriate.
(5) No modification may be issued for
a discharge into marine waters unk .s
those waters exhibit characteristics
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 152 / Tuesday. August 9. 1994 / Rules and Regulations
40643
assuring that water providing dilution
does not contain significant amounts of
previously discharged effluent from the
POTW.
(6) No section 301(h) modified permit
may be issued authorizing the discharge
of any pollutant into saline estuarine
waters which at the time of the
application exhibit certain stressed
conditions specified in the statute.
without regard to the presence or
absence of a causal relationship between
those conditions and the applicants
current or proposed discharge.
(7) No permits may be issued for
section 301(h) modified discharges into
the New York Bight Apex.
(8) Any POTWthat had a contractual
agreement before December 31, 1982, to
use an outfall operated by another
POTW which has applied for or
received a section 301(h) modified
permit may apply for a section 301(h)
permit in its own right within 30 days
of WQA enactment.
(9) Certain provisions of the WQA
amendments do not apply to
applications which received final or
tentative approval before enactment of
the WQA. These permits will, however.
be subject to the new sectIon 301(h)
requirements upon permit renewal.
C. Overview 0/Public Comments
EPA proposed regulations on January
24. 1991. responding to the
requirements of the WQA and program
experience (56 FR 2814). The preamble
to the proposed regulations explains the
proposed changes in the regulations in
response to the WQA. On March 7,
1991. EPA held a public hearing in
Washington. DC, to receive comment on
the proposal. The public comment
period was open for 60 days and closed
on March 25. 1991. Although some
comments were not received until April
8, 1991, EPA has elected to consider all
comments received in developing this
final rule. EPA received both written
comments and comments at the public
hearing on the proposed rule from a
total of 17 commenters: eight section
3 1(h) applicants, two State
governments, four independent
consultants, and three environmentall
public interest groups.
Although the comments received
addressed many of the proposed
changes. the principal areas ci concern
to commenters focused on prirn ry or
equivalent treatment requirements.
urhan area pretreatment. and the water
quality critena requirements. A brief
5ummary of the comments on these
‘reas is set out below, and a more
dctailed discussion of a!l commenis
received is set out later in the section-
hy-soct ion analysis of this prcamb!e.
Comments regarding primary
treatment raised issues related to the 30
percent removal requirement for BOD,
the cost to small communities of
complying, and the time limit to meet
the primary treatment requirement.
Comments on urban area pretreatment
raised issues about use of the pilot plant
approach to demonstrate secondary
removal equivalency for toxics,
development of local pretreatment
limits, which pollutants are subject to
this requirement, the time limit to meet
this requirement, and the cost of
compliance. Comments regarding the
section 304(a)(1) water quality criteria
focused on setting risk levels for
carcinogens, determining mixing zones
for evaluating compliance with State
water quality standards, and the role of
the section 304(a)(1) water quality
criteria in cases where the State has
adopted a different water quality
standard under CWA section 303.
D. Sunimazy of Changes Made From the
2991 Proposal
For the convenience of the reader, the
following discussion provides a brief
overview of the sections and subject
areas in which today’s final rule makes
changes from the January 24, 1991,
proposal. Table I of the preamble also
provides a summary of those changes. A
full discussion of the changes made in
the regulations and proposal is set out
later in the section.by.section analysis
of today’s preamble.
Today’s final rule would make a
clarifying change from the 1991
proposal in § 125.5 8(n), which defines
the term “ocean waters.” This change is
intended to clarify the distinction
between “saline estuarine waters” and
“ocean waters,” a distinction important
to the application of the WQA
provisions prohibiting section 301(h)
discharges into stressed saline estuarine
waters.
Today’s final rule makes a change
from the 1991 proposal in § 125.59,
which addresses general application
requirements. The proposal allowed the
grantir g of tentative approvals if the
applicant demonstrated good fai h to
come into compliance with all the
requirements of this subpart. based on a
schedule in accordance with
§ 125.39(fl(3)(ii). EPA received a
ccmi er,t asking that this section be
clarified. The ccmmenter stated that
because S 125.59 O(3)(iil Ofli applies to
primay treatment and urban area
pretreatment requirements, the section
could be interpreted as allowing
compliance schedules only for those
requirements and not for all
r .quirernents. Section 125.59(h) has
been amended to allow compliance
schedules for all requirements.
This change merely clarifies EPA’s
original intent,
Today’s final rule makes a change
from the 1991 proposal in § 125.60,
which addresses the WQA requirements
for compliance with primary or
equivalent treatment. The proposal
specified a monthly averaging period for
determining compliance with the 30
percent SOD removal requirement for
BOO and SS established by the WQA. In
response to comments on this issue, the
final rule adds the opportunity under
certain special circumstances for
applicants unable to meet the 30 percent
removal requirement for BOD on the
basis of a monthly average to request a
longer averaging period (up to annual)
in order to provide needed flexibility in
calculating compliance. This averaging
basis is not available for those POTWs
that have already shown a consistent
ability to meet the 30-percent removal
requirement for BOD on a monthly
basis. Because no comments were
received indicating a need for flexibility
in the monthly averaging period for
determining compliance with the 30
percent suspended solids removal
requirement, this change applies only to
the BOD removal requirements.
The final rule makes a change to the
proposed regulatory language of
§ 125.62 with regard to determining
compliance with State water quality
standards, Comments were received on
the issue of mixing zones, and in
evaluating these comments. EPA noted
that the proposal had inadvertently
omitted language contained in the
existing 1982 section 301(h) regulations
on meeting applicable water quality
standards at and beyond the zone of
initial dilution. The final rule
promulgated today would retain chat
language so that the original
requirement of the 1982 regulations for
meeting State water quality standards at
the edge of the zone of initial dilution -
remains in effect.
The final rule also makes a change
from the 1991 proposal in § 125.63,
which addresses section 30 1(h)
monitoring programs. While implied,
the proposal did not include explicit
regulatory language requiring
monitoring to determine compliance
with the primary treatment
requi!’ements. It also did not induce.
under general requirements. an explicit
requirement to have a momtoring
program to demonstrate compliance
with water quality criteria as well as
water quality standards, as applicable.
The final rule adds these roqulremcnts
to § 125.63 (a)(1) and (dX2) ifl order to
en5ure that applicants provide data on
-------
40644 Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 152 / Tuesday. August 9. 1994 I Rules and Regiiliitinns
their cmnptisn with these
requirements over the Life of the permit.
In addibon. in response to comments.
the final rule m,ikiit several clarifying
changes to S 125.65. which eddie s
the urban ares pietreetmeot
requirements. Th. changes are intended
to provide additional guidance on
implementation of this section with
regard to the development of
pretreatment requirements and
secondary equivalency for toxics
removaL
Some conforming and organizational
changes were made to the application
questionnaire contained in the
Appendix to these regulations. These
changes address amendments made in
TA8t.E I
the final ruleand simplify its use by
applicants and the Agency to determine
compliance with the 301(h)
requirements.
The remaining sections of the nile
(55 125.56. 125.57. 125.61. 125.64.
125.66—125.681 remain unchanged from
the 1991 proposaL.
F1n ’
Carmen
Changes barn 1991 Proposal
12556
12557
t25.58
12559
12560
Scope end Ptapose ..._..
Law gevenang issuance of a modified pen iI .___ ,_,..,_
DeG..ba u .
Untimiged.
Unchanged.
Claithed ocean water deSrition.
ctent o en or coa uance
sctn s.
Change to BOO remov ai eraging pe-
nod under certain drcunutances.
Genend ._ —......... --—- - — -.-...-..... -...- -
Pesmy or eQuivalent Veatrnerl requrementa
.
125 $1 .
Ex nce of and ccn ence with p’ ” ’e waler quality uandavde
Un ha . ged.
125.62
A aiw* or maititemece of water hty wtath asswes prote on of water supplies,
end liw protection w pi ’ lieu of a balanced, .ndganom popciation of sheU6sh,
Salt and wil f a, and aflows recreatiorul a mes.
Change to moang rene provisions.
12563
12564
25.55
12565
12557
125.68
Appendix
EstmSslvneiu of a monitoring program. ._. -
Mol uvj roes regardeig primary
veatmem onoplorue ‘a
Unthariged.
Clanlysig language
Unmanqed.
Unchanged.
Unchanged.
and ganIzational changes
‘
Effect of d d’.Nqe on other point and r.onpo.nt sources
Urtieri area proveannent program ..__,__________
Tones waul program .__ - -
hc in elSueru i sne or arrows of polk en discharged .__.. -.
Sp .i eariotians si uii 301(h) iiv t seo pe. . . s — ...
A s* quessonreae (or modificanon of semn ry veanyme requrremener ._...
-
mede.
U. 5edioo ethoo Analyros
This section provIdes a description of
each section In the regulation and
discusses the public comments
received.. Citations to sections of the
part 125. subpart G. regulations in the
discussion below refer to the section
numbers o(the regulations as numbered
under tod ay’s rule.
Although portions of the section
i01(h) regulations that were not
proposed for change are being reprinted
with today’s action, this has been done
for the ivenienon of the reader. EPA
did not reconsider those existing
pomona of the regulations end they are
not sublect to challenge as past of this
final rulemaking.
Section 125.56:This section
establishes the general scope and
purpose of the regulations. EPA did not
propose to revise this section. and no
c mments were received. This section
remains unchanged.
Section 125.57:This section sets forth
the statutory language applicable to
section 301(h) modified permits. No
comments were received, and this
section rem 1n i unchanged from the
proposed rule.
Section 125.58: This section sets forth
the definitions applicable to the subpart
C regulations. As a result of section 303
.nthe WQ& the 1991 proposal added
definitions of “primary or equivalent
treatment.” “pretreatment.” “categorical
pretreatment standard.” “secondary
removal equivalency.” “water quality
cnteria. “permittee.” and “New York
Bight Apex.” In addition, the proposal
made changes to existing definitions for
“industrial source.” “ocean waters,”
and “stressed waters.” EPA received
significant comments on two aspects of
the primary or equivaLent treatment
requirements and the definition of
saline estuarine waters,
Definition of Primary Treatment
Section 125.58(r) of the proposed rule
defined “primary or equivalent
treatment” as treatment by screening.
sedimentation, and skimming adequate
to remove at least 30 percent of the
biochemical oxygen demanding (BOD)
material and of the suspended solids
(SS) iii the treatment works influent.
and disinfection, where appropriate.
This definition was taken directly from
the language of section 303(d) of the
WQA. The preamble to the proposed
nile further explained that the terms
“sedimentation” and “skimming” could
include a range of treatment techniques
such as coagulation and precipitation
(physical adjuncts to sedimentation),
and flotation and subsequent removal
by skimming. in oi’der to achieve the
required 30 percent removal of BOO and
SS. (56 FR 2818). Although certain types
of treatment are specified in the
statutory definition (i.e., screening,
sedimentation, and skirnwingj , EPA
believes the principal Intent of the
statutory definition is to ensure
compliance with the 30 percent BOO
and SS removal requirements. inther
than specifying the exact methods used
to achieve such removal rates. For
example, chemical addition,
coagulation. and precipitation might be
necessary in addition to the specific
treatment processes listed in the
definition in order to achieve the
mandated 30 percent removal, and this
would be allowable.
Several commenters sought a change
to the definition due to concerns with
the requirement to achieve 30 percent
DOD removaL As discussed below in
more detail, the comrnenters’ concerns
centered on the practical difficulties in
achieving 30 percent BOO removal by
the physical processes of pnmary
treatment. Some noted that from an
engineering standpoint, technologies for
primary treatment are aimed at
removing solids, rather than soluble
BOO.
Some commenters stated that their
review of the legislative history of the
WQ.\ amendments to section 30 1(h)
-------
Federal Register / Vol.59. No. 152 I Tuesday, August 9, 1994 I Rules and Regulations 40645
shows that Congress did not articulate
any rationale for defining primary
treatment as 30 percent removal of BOD.
The commenters argued that Congress’
intent was to stop the discharge of
untreated sewage from waiver
recipients. They also pointed out that
Congress defined primary treatment as
consisting only of skimming. screening.
and sedimentation, and did not include
more sophisticated technologies, such
as coagulation and precipitation.
Therefore, they state. EPA must adopt
that literal definition and acknowledge
that skimming, screening and
sedimentation might not be enough to
achieve 30 percent removal of BOD.
Commenters sought a change to the
definition of primary treatment to reflect
only the physical processes and not the
30-percent removal requirements.
Another commenter disagreed and
argued that the advantages of using
clear, uniform 30-percent standards in
the statute and regulations are obvious,
and that the fact that these advantages
and other plausible rationales were not
stated explicitly in the legislative
history is insufficient grounds for
ignoring the plain and unambiguous
statutory requirements.
Some commenters noted that primary
treatment generally is intended to
remove settleable solids and floating
materials rather than DOD and therefore
inclusion of 30 percent BOO removal as
part of the definition of primary
treatment is technically inappropriate.
In support, several commenters cited
the literature of wastewater engineering
and stated that DOD reductions
achieved by primary treatment are the
result of insoluble (solid form) SOD
being removed along with the settleable
or floatable materials. The commenters
pointed out that soluble BOD would not
be removed by the physical processes of
screening, skimming, and
sedimentation, and that the BOD
removal rates achievable by primary
treatment would therefore vary
depending upon the relative amounts of
soluble and insoluble BaD. Commenters
also cited situations where pretreatment
of discharges by industrial discbargers
that removes much of the insoluble BOO
(e.g.. fish processors removing settleable
fish wastes) results in a high proportion
of soluble to insoluble BOO. One
commenter noted that the key statutory
term in section 303(d)(2) of the WQA is
“material,” implying that Congress
intended that 30 percent removal refers
to insoluble DOD, not total BOD.
Section 303(d)(2) states that “primary or
equivalent treatment means the removal
of at least’ ‘30 percent of the
biological oxygen demanding material
• “ (emphasis added). The
commenters therefore sought a change
to the regulations’ definition of primary
treatment to require 30 percent removal
of insoluble BOO, with soluble BOO
being excluded from the 30 percent
removal requirement.
Some commenters were concerned
that they might have difficulty in
achieving 30 percent BOD removal by
the physical processes of primary
treatment because their influent BOO
levels were very dilute, that is,
relatively low concentrations of SOD in
the raw wastewater would make 30
percent removal hard to achieve, These
commenters pointed to a number of
factors leading to such dilute
wastewater and difficulties in achieving
removal efficiencies such as (1) cold
climates which result in freeze/thaw
problems including inflow and
infiltration from snow melt and cracked
or broken pipes with attendant dilution
of the influent by the resulting influx of
fresh water, (2) insufficient industrial or
commercial sources with high
concentrations of BOD in the
wastewater discharges to the municipal
sewage system to offset otherwise dilute
influents with low DOD concentrations;
(3) cold wastewater temperatures
resulting in relatively less efficient
treatment; and (4) extremely high tides
and high precipitation. These
commenters recommended that EPA not
require 30 percent removal during
periods of extremely dilute and clean
inflows.
After considering these comments,
EPA made no changes to the definition
of primary or equivalent treatment in
§ 125.58(r). However, as discussed
below in the section.by-section analysis
for § 125.60. the Agency is making
changes to how compliance with the 30
percent removal requirement is
calculated for BOD. Specifically, EPA is
allowing the demonstration of
compliance with the 30 percent BOO
removal requirement to be averaged
over a longer time period than
proposed, in some circumstances. This
added flexibility should provide some
of the relief sought by commenters.
Although EPA recognizes that from a
technical or engineering perspective,
primary treatment is generally thought
of as physical processes to remove
solids, the statutory definition of
primary treatment adopted by Congress
for purposes of section 301(h) is
unambiguous in requiring 30 percent
BOO removal. In addition, EPA
disagrees with the commenters who
stated that the statutory definition
precludes the use of additional
treatment processes such as chemical
addition to enhance primary treatment’s
physical processes (e.g.. chemical
addition, coagulation, and precipitation)
in order to achieve the required 30
percent removal of BOO.
With regard to the comnienters’
suggestions that the definition be
revised to define BOO as insoluble BOD
only. EPA recognizes that removal of
BOD in primary treatment normally is
associated with the removal of settleable
(i.e., insoluble) materials. While the
literature cited by the coinmenters
indicates that BOD removals for
traditional primary treatment range from
about 20 to 40 percent, the reported
range is a result of many factors
including treatment plant design. —
subsequent additional treatment and
influent qualities such as the presence
of soluble versus non-soluble BOO.
Furthermore, Congress set the BOD
removal standard without incorporating
such a distinction. Both soluble and
insoluble SOD exert the similar effect of
depressing dissolved oxygen levels in
the receiving waters. Limiting the
required removal to only insoluble SOD
ignores this fact and also would be
inconsistent with the existing approach
of the Agency’s secondary treatment
regulations, which do not distinguish
between removal of soluble and
insoluble BOD. EPA disagrees that the
use of the term ‘material” in section
303(d)(2) indicates that Congress
intended that 30 percent removal refer
only to insoluble BOD. See. e.g.. 40 CFR
part 133.
The definition in today’s regulations
comports with the express statutory
language, and if an applicant does ha’ e
difficulty meeting the 30 percent BOD
removal requirement with treatment b
screening, sedimentation, and
skimming, for such reasona as dilute
influent. cold temperatures, or soluble.
to-insoluble BOO ratios, applicants can
increase BOO removal efficiencies
through the application of treatment
processes which may include physical
processes enhanced by chemical
processes. Aocordlngly, given the
unambiguous statutory language on
percent removal and the ability to use
enhanced treatment processes when
necessary, EPA believes the definition
should not be amended to allow for less
than 30 percent removal of DOD or to
exclude soluble BOD from the removal
requirements established by Congress
Compliance with the 30 percent
removal requirement, which may
require enhanced or additional
technologies, is more appropriate tnan
limiting treatment strictly to the three
technologies listed in the statute and not
achieving 30 percent in some cases. The
term material, EPA believes, does not
imply insoluble, and, as explained
above, such an interpretation makes
-------
40646 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 152 I Tuesday. August 9. 1994 ! Rules and Regulations
little se ven that soluble and
insoluble BOO omit similar effects in
the receiving waters.
Other co’ tars requested that the
definition be di ii ..d remuge that the
combined average of both BOO and 55
percent removal be at least 30 percent.
EPA amsidored this option but did not
deem it elxaptebla for two reasons.
First, the statute staten that primary
treatment requires the removal of at
least 30 percent of the biological oxygen
demanding material and of the
suspended solids. Combining the BUD
and SS removal requirements into an
overall 30 percent average, in EPA’s
view, would not satisfy the statutory
language or intent. Second. after
considering both information submitted
by commenters and FPA’s own
assessment of primary treatment
removal data from P0IlNs (See
Technical Review of the Influent!
Effluent Oraradaristica of POTWs. fune
199 ), EPA concludes that most POTWs
are removing greater than 30 percent of
SS. and some are removing greater than
60 percent of 55. Adopting the
suggested dt nge thus would allow for
an actual relaxing of both BUD and SS
removal even (or applicants capable of
meeting the 30 percent removal of BOD
and 30 percent removal of SS. There is
no indication that Congress intended
this result. Moreover, properly run
primary treatment plants should be able
to meet 30 percent SS removal and no
comments or d were received that
indicate otherwise. EPA believes one
obiecavo of the primary treatment
provision isto ensure the proper design
and operation of treatment plants. and
th i . objective would not be met under
the commenrers’ suggested
interpretation.
Stouter to the above comments. some
corn mentors requested the definition be
chaiqed to require that the combined
avenge of both BOO and SS percent
removal be greater than 80 percent. As
stated above. EPA doe. not believe that
the 3 tatutoiy language and intent are
c nsastent with combining BOO and 55
removals to meet the 30.permnt
removal requirement. Using a standard
o160 percent would stray even further
from the plain meaning of the statute.
Moreover. if Congress had intended to
provide a 60 percent removal
requirement it could easily have so
specs fled in the statute, however, the
statute makes no reference to a 60
percent removal of BOD and SS. Finally.
as with the previous comment. this
interpretation could allow for even
greater relaxing of treatment efficiencies
(or BOO removal (or 55). leading to less
et’ic’ent plant operations than
i ?tIcants are currently achieving.
Seine coinmenteas su ested that the
requirement (0 ,30 percent removal
should reflect a “oredit ystum, ” under
which the removal efficiency for BOO
would becalculatedbesedon a
combination of the BUD removal by
industrial diachargers’ pretreatment.
plus the removal achieved by treatment
processes at the POTW. This approach
is inconsistent with the plain statutory
language and thus cannot be adopted.
The statute unambiguously specifies
that the 30 peu. t removal rate is to be
achieved with to the applicant’s
influent. Such üilluent would already
have been subject to industrial
dischargers’ pretreatment. and because
the statute reuttires that the 30 percent
removal rate be achieved for the influent
to the POTW, aedit cannot be given for
upstream treatment by industrial
dischargers.
In contrast to the above comments
seeking a change In the definition of
primary treatment, other comn ents
supported the definition of primary
treatment as 30 percent removal of BOO
and of SS as proposed. These
commenters noted that this definition is
consistent with the plain, unambiguous
definition specified by Congress in the
WQA as discussed above. and these
cominentere agree with EPA that the
suggested changes to the definition that
EPA has reected would be
inappropriate.
Definitions of Saline Estuarine Waters
and Ocean Waters
Under sertion 303(e) of the WQA.
section 301(h) modified discharges are
prohibited into saline estuarine waters
exhibiting certain signs of stress (i.e..
degradation to water quality) specified
in the statute. In contrast, this flat
prohibition does not apply to “ocean
waters.’ As a result, in the proposed
rule, EPA ameoded the term “ocean
waters” in § 125.58(n) to clarify that
ocean waters are distinct from saline
estuarine waters because dischaz es to
saline estuaries ate now subject to
additIonal regulatory criteria not
applicable to discharger to oceans.
Although the existing definition of
saline estuarine waters was not
proposed for amendment, some
commenters expressed the view that it
is too broad and thus ir ,ig it give the
prohibition on section 301(h) discharges
to stressed saline estuanine waters
greater scope than intended. These
commenters sought a definition giving -
more precise boundaries to saline
estuarine waters.
The narrative definition of saline
estuanne waters has remained
unchanged since its original 1979
promulçition in the section 301(h)
regulations, and the section 301(h)
regulations have always pl
additional restrictions on discharges to
saline estuarine waters compared to
ocean wateis. Section 125.81(c)(4)
(1982) places additional limits on
impacts within the sene of initial
dilution for ssilln. iiirine discharges.
EPA’s experience with the use of a
general narrative definition of saline
estuarine waters for purposes of making
regulatory distinctions is that this
approach is workable. EPA believes that
it is not feasible for the purposes of the
section 301(h) regulations to develop a
definition establishing fixed boundaries
between ocean and estuarine waters. but
that all relevant local circumstances
should be considered and the
distinction should be made on the basic
of the sate-specific circumstances.
The comnienters’ concern appears to
center on the meaning of the term
“semi-enclosed waters” in the
definition of saline estuarine waters. In
this regard it is important to note that
under § 125.58(v). not all semi-enciosed
coastal waters are treated as saline
estuaries. Under the section 301(h)
regulations. while some enibaymenrs
and other indentations along the
coastline lie inside the baseline from
which the territorial sea begins, they are
treated for purposes of section 301(h) as
being ocean waters. See preamble to
1979 section 30Uhl regulations (44 FR
34784. 34795. June 15. 1979). As noted
in the preamble to the 1979 section
301(h) regulations (44 FR 34795). it is
the presence of fresh water inflows that
is the distinguishing characteristic of
estuaries. EPA notes today that saline
estuarmne waters typically are waters
lying inside the baseline in which the
salinity is diluted by fresh water
inflows. In contrast, embayments or
indentations along the coastline that are
not influenced by such fresh water
inflows are not estuaries. To further
clarify that ocean waters and salis e
estuarine waters axe distinct and
mutually exclusive terms for purposes
of section 301(h). the finaL rule, as in the
proposal. amends the definition of
“ocean waters” to note that this term
specifically excludes saline estuarine
waters.
Commer.ters also inquired about
situations where an outfall crosses
through estuarina waters, but the actti , l
discharge is into offshore waters.
Because both the statute and the
implementing regulations make clear
that the prohibition applies to
discharges of pollutants into saline
estuanne waters, the statute and
implementing regulations already
adequately address this case.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 152 I Tuesday, August 9. 1994 / Rules and Regulations 40647
Section 125.59: This section desaibes
the general requirements for section
301(h) appliattions. including filing
procedures and deadlines, procedures
for revising applications, and
procedures for State determinations.
EPA proposed to make several changes
to this section. in the proposed rule,
EPA added procedures for pertrnt
renewal. clarified language regarding
State determinations, and added
provisions for the submission of
additional information to demonstrate
compliance with the urban area
pretreatment program and primary or
equivalent treatment requirements. EPA
also proposed to amend the regulations
in accorrlnnrp with section 303 (g) of the
WQA to exclude certain applicants from
the water quality caiteria provisions of
§ 125.62(a). primary or equivalent
treatment 1 ,W -dm requirements
( 125.60) and urban area pretreatment
program requirements ( 125.65) until
permit renewaL As provided by the
WQA. and explained later on in this
preamble. these grandfathering
provisions In today’s rmal rule apply
only to those section 301(h) applications
that received tentative or final section
301(h) modified permit approvals prior
to enactment of the WQA.
The new requimemats for submitting
additional infennarion are found in
§ 125.5 (e) and (0. Under those
irovisions. permittees and applicants to
whom EPA hen issued a final or
tentative decision, including those that
have been grundlathered under WQA
section 303(g). must submit a letter of
intent explaining how the permittee or
applicant will meet the primary
treatment and urban area pretreatment
requirements. Under § 125.59(11(3).
applicants that are not grandfathered
have two years from publication of the
regulation to comply with the primary
treatment and urban area pretreatment
requireulents applicants that ate
grandlathered !ave until permit renewal
or two years from date of publication of
these regulations, whichever is later.
Under § 125.59(e). the letters of intent
muss contain a project plan. induding a
schedule, to ensure that timely
implementation of she requirements is
accomplished.
Seine commenters expressed the view
hat two years from the date of
promulgation of the regulations is not
sufficient time to enable omplianca
with the primary treatment and urban
area pzeueai e requirements. One of
these exprmced concern
over the Imp of mish a deadline on
a c i da. . i+iq,dule it has entered
to for development of a pretreatment
• .-oglam. Further, this commenter was
concerned that the time would not be
sufficient to develop pretreatment limits
for all 126 toxic priority pollutants.
Another cemmenter expressed concern
that two years was not sufficient given
their short construction season and
reliance on obtaining funds from a State
legislature whose timing is not in the
commenter’s control. Other commenters
expressed the view that two years is a
reasonable timeframe. Another
commenter expressed the view that two
years Is an excessive timoframe and in
fact should not apply to requirements
which were either (1) in effect prior to
the 1987 amendments or (2) clear on the
face of the 1987 amendments (e.g.. 30
percent BOD/suspended solids removal
standards).
With regard to requirements in effect
prior to the 1987 WQA. the twoyear
time frame is not applicable. The two.
year time frame applies only to the
urban area pretreatment program and
primary or equivalent treatment
requirements, both of which were added
by the WQA .
EPA recognizes that For some
applicants, compliance with a two-year
deadline from the date of promulgation
of the regulations may be more difficult
than for others, for example, those who
may have to obtain funding to design
and build an upgraded facility to meet
the primary treatq ent requirements.
However, none of the commenters
opposing the two-year deadline
provided persuasive Information
demonstrating why this deadline could
not be met. One commenter subject to
court-ordered deadlines and consent
deaee time-lines asked how to
reconcile those deadlines with the
consent decree time-lines. That
commenter also noted that there are a
number of different activities that need
to be performed to establish a local
limit, such as gathering data, developing
computer models, and obtaining
government approvals. That commenter.
however, provided no information
supportIng why these activities cannot
be accomplished within the time
established in the regulation. EPA notes
that several of these activities can be
performed simultaneously. In response,
the commenter will have to comply
with the deadlines Included in the
consent decree. This comment is moot
because of the time that has elapsed
between the proposed rule and today.
The deadlines in the rule should not
affect the dates In consent decree. in
addition, the ceminentel’ has been on
flOti(M for several years. EPA continues
to believe that the two-year time frame
for compliance provides sufficient time
to achieve compliance. It should also be
noted that the requirement to develop
local pretreatment limits does not
neomsarily apply to all 126 priority
pollutants, but only three that are
known or suspected to be introduced to
the plant by industry, as discussed later
in this preamble. The Agency notes that
the statutory provisions giving rise to
these requirements were enacted in
1987. and that the proposed regulations
and draft technical support document
were issued in 1991. In addition, the
Agency has had other final guidance on
the development of pretreatment
programs in place for several years.
Even in cases where commenters claim
they have large numbers of dischargers
and large numbers of pollutants will
need to be addressed, EPA continues to
believe that sufficient tints and notice
has been given to achieve compliance.
EPA agrees with the commenter who
noted that applicants have been on
notice of the need to comply with the
primary treatment and urban area
pretreatment requirements for quite
some time, and could have already
initiated work on the planning and
development of measures to achieve
compliance. The Agency also recognizes
that in the absence of final regulations
on these issues, applicants should not
be expected to have completely
developed and Implemented final plans.
Given this situation, and in the absence
of supporting information to show that
the two-year time flume of the proposal
is inappropriate, the Agency Is retaining
the proposal’s two-year time frame from
the date of publication of the final
regulations in the Federal Register to
achieve compliance. This date, August
9. 1996. is inserted In the regulatory te .t
of this rule.
One commenter asked for additional
time to comply with the urban area
pretreatment and primary treatment
equivalency requirements for a plant
that has not yet been constructed. In
response. these applicants will have to
demonstrate compliance with these
requirements based on a predictive
analysis of their flows. The applicant
must base their predictron on potential
industrial sources and pollutants, and.
to the best of their ability, support such
predictions within the two-year time
frame.
In proposed § 125.59(h), EPA added
language to clarify that the Agency may
tentatively approve a section 301(h)
permit modification where an appikunt
has demonstrated a good faith effort to
come into compliance with all
requirements of the section 301(h)
regulations, based upon a schedule
approved by the Agency for meeting any
outstanding sectIon 301(h)
requirements. This provision is
consistont with the existing regularinn
and practice and was proposed for
-------
40648 Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 152 / Tuesday. August 9. 1994 / Rules and Regulations
addition only as a clarifying change. In
addition. the proposal made no changes
to the existing requirement that in order
to receive a final section 301(h)
niodification. applicants must
demonstrate actual compliance with all
of the part 125. subpart G. requirements
before EPA will issue a final section
301(h) modified permit. See 40 CFR
§ 125.59(g)(1) (1982).
One commenter supported the
approach taken by EPA on tentatively
approving an application based on a
schedule with respect to outstanding
requirements if an applicant has
demonstrated a good faith effort to come
into compliance. However, the
commenter is concerned that § 125.59(h)
creates an ambiguity regarding the
permissible scope of the schedules for
meeting 301(h) requirements. Section
§ 125.59(h) allows EPA to tentatively
approve an application if the applicant
is making a good faith effort to comply
with “all requirements of this subpart.”
(emphasis added) The section continues
on. however, to require that the
schedule for meeting these requirements
must be “approved by the Administrator
in accordance with § 125.59(f)(3}(ii),
which refers only to schedules of
compliance with § 125.60 (primary or
equivalent treatment) and § 125.65
(urban area pretreatment).
EPA agrees with the coininenter and
is clarifying § 125.59(h) to allow
schedules for satisfying the 301(h)
requirements for all requirements. It was
not the Agency’s intent to limit
compliance schedules to the
requirements of § 125.60 and 125.65.
The Agency’s intent was that the
limitations of § 125.59(lX3Kii) apply
only to compliance schedules for
meeting the § 125.60 and 125.65
requirements. Therefore, we are adding
a phrase to § 125.59(0(3 1(u) that reflects
the Agency’s intent.
Some commeriters expressed the view
that EPA should not grant tentative
approvals before all the section 301(h)
requirements are met. Additionally, one
of these commenters felt that if a
tentative approval is granted prior to
such compliance, the applicant may be
encouraged to relax its effort to comply.
Based on its past experience with this
approach. EPA believes that the
provisions of the proposed regulation
are appropriate and contain adequate
safeguards to prevent abuse. The
regulatory provision specifically
requires that applicants must be making
a good faith effort to achieve compliance
and requires that EPA establish a
schedule for achieving compliance. In
addition, this approach provides an
opportunity for EPA. through the
tentative decision document, to put the
public and applicants on notice of
specific deficiencies and the steps and
time frame required to correct such
deficiencies. Rather than creating a
disincentive to timely compliance, the
regulatory provision requires that a
schedule for compliance be established.
in addition. EPA believes that by
advising applicants that they may
receive a final section 301(h) waiver if
the identified deficiencies are corrected
as required, the provision provides an
added incentive for applicants to
achieve timelycompliance. Fically. by
addressing such deficiencies through
the tentative approval, the more lengthy
process of tentative denial followed by
application revision is avoided. For
these reasons, EPA believes that the
regulatory provision is reasonable and is
promulgating that provision today as
proposed with the clarification noted
above.
One commenter recommended that
the EPA regional office issue a letter to
the applicant stating that its permit has
been administratively extended in
accordance with § 122.6. lii response.
EPA notes that this is a procedural issue
governed by the NPDES regulations. It is
not a subject of this rulemaking.
EPA notes in reviewing this section
that § 125.59(d)(5) might be
misinterpreted to mean there is no
opportunity to present new information
on applications for permit renewal.
Paragraph (d)(5) is referring to the One-
time revisions allowed in § 125.59(d)(1)
and (d)(2). Applicants who are
authorized or requested tu submit
additional information under § 125.59(g)
may still do so.
Section 125.60: The proposal added
§ 125.60 to the regulations to implement
the primary or equivalent treatment
provision in section 303(d) of the WQA.
Issues related to the definition of
primary treatment have been previously
dealt with in the discussion of § 125.58.
Proposed § 125.60 required an
applicant’s discharge. at the time the
waiver becomes effective, to have
received at least primary or equivalent
treatment. Additionally, under the
proposal. applicants were to comply
with this treatment requirement based
on the monthly average results of the
monitoring for SS and BOO.
A number of commenters
recommended that EPA consider
lengthening the period of time over
which monitoring data are averaged to
determine compliance with the 30
percent BOD removal requirement.
These commenters presented
Information on the difficulties with
achieving the 30 percent removal
because of such factors as dilute
wastewaters, cold climates that impact
treatment design parameters (e.g..
settling rates). and proportionately low
amounts of insoluble BOD. One of the
options identified by these commenters
was to change from monthly averaging
of monitoring data to annual averaging
(Or some period in between).
Commenters pointed out that this was a
reasonable approach which was
necessary to account for variations in
influent quality or other factors affecting
removal rates that might occur over a
year’s time. Other commenters
supported meeting the primary
treatment removal requirements on a
monthly average basis.
The Agency believes that the
proposed period for averaging
monitoring results (i.e.. monthly) to
determine compliance with the 30
percent BOD removal requirement will
be appropriate for most applicants.
However, as noted in the discussion for
the primary treatment definition in
§ 125.58, the Agency also recognizes
that the 30 percent removal rate for BOO
may be difficult to achieve on a monthly
average basis in certain cases. e.g..
dilute wastewater or proportionately
low concentrations of insoluble BOO.
Because of this, the final rule has been
modified to provide flexibility in certain
instances by allowing compliance -
monitoring to be averaged for a period
longer than monthly. up to annually.
EPA anticipates that compliance
monitoring requirements established for
longer than monthly average periods
will be the exception, not the general
practice. An applicant who has
demonstrated a consistent ability to
achieve 30 percent removal of BOO on
a monthly average basis over one year
prior to the publication date of these
regulations will not be eligible for the
longer than monthly averaging period.
The longer period will be available only
to those applicants who have some
historical data on BOO removal, and not
for newly constructed facilities.
Eligibility for the longer period is
limited to those who, based on
circumstances listed below, and subject
to the qualifications listed below, truly
cannot achieve 30 percent removal on a
monthly average.
It is the Regional Administrator’s
decision whether to allow the longer
averaging period. The Regional
Administrator will udge each eligible
case on its individual circumstances,
taking into account climatic, seasonal.
or other factors beyond the applicant’s
control which cause significant
fluctuations in influent characteristics
that could impact BOD removal
efficiencies. Appropriate circumstances
may includal
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 152 / Tuesday, August 9. 1994 I Rules and Regulations 40649
• Seasonally dilute influent BOO
concentrations due to relatively high
(although nonexcessive) inflow and
infiltration;
• Relatively high soluble to insoluble
BOO ratios on a fluctuating basis; or
• Cold climates resulting in cold
influent.
The longer period must be requested
by the applicant, and the burden of
justifying a longer averaging period will
be on the applicant. In addition to
justifying the application on conditions
listed above, to qualify for the longer
averaging period the applicant will have
to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Regional Administrator that the
treatment facility is properly designed
and operated; that the applicant will be
able to meet all sectIon 301(h)
requirements with the longer averaging
basis: and because of ciraunstances
beyond the applicant’s control
(examples listed above), the applicant
cannot achieve the 30 percent removal
requirement for BOO on a monthly
averaging basis. The final rule also
requires that inflow and infiltration (U
I) is nonexcessive in order to ensure that
applicants have corrected, as feasible,
deflciendes In their collection system
that result In extremely dilute
wastewater. The definition of excessive
1/1 In 40 CFR 35.2005(b)(16) will be used
to determine whether the 1/1 is
xcesslve, plus the additional a’iterion
Jiat inflow Is nonexcessive if the total
flow to the primary treetment plant is
less than 275 gallons per capita per day.
consistent with 40 R 133.103(d) of
the secondary treatment regulations.
It should be noted that permit writers
can still incorporate interim limits into
the permit. When compliance
determinations with interim limits
indicate that the ability to achieve 30
percent removal of SOD for the
designated period Is compromised,
action to determine and, if possible, fix
the problem should be taken.
Momtoring frequencies for SOD should
remain the same as they would be if the
compliance determination for SOD
removal was on a monthly average
basis. For enforcement purposes, there
is the potential that allowing longer
averaging periods may prove mere
costly to the POTW In violation. POTWs
should note that if a longer period is
granted, they should be aware of the risk
that a violation of an annual average
limit may result in 365 days of
violation.
Other commenters requested that EPA
set a baseline level of SOD in the
treatment works Influent above which
percent removal would be required,
.th 30 percent removal not required
for influent cleaner than that threshold
level. This option relies on a level of
BOD in the in fluent that hypothetically
represents a typical BOO Influent
concentration. The statute specifies 30
percent removal and does not tie this
requirement to some specific
concentration in the influent. The
Agency believes that making the
statutory 30 percent removal
requirement dependent on a
hypothetical influent baseline
concentration would not meat the
statute’s intent.
One conimenter stated that the
approach to section 301(h) waivers
should be based on water quality effects
and not on any “equivalencies.” e.g..
primary treatment and secondary
removal equivalency, In response to this
general comment, EPA reiterates that It
is promulgating these regulations to
implement the new provisions of the
WQA which mandate prirnaryor
equivalent treatment. Today’s regulatory
scheme Is fully consistent with the new
WQA amendments.
Some conimenten raised concerns
about the financial Impact on some
individual discharger. if additional
capital Improvements are needed to
meet the 30 percent BOD removal
requirement. They see the costs of
meeting the new primary ueatment
requirements as having a
disproportionate impact on small
communities. For example, one
coinmenter stated that this requirement
would result in a20 percent rate
Increase: that polymers alone would
cost 5100.000. Others commented that
cost should not be a factor in justifying
a lower removal efficiency and that EPA
should not guarantee a cap on sewage
treatment costs.
As part of this rulemaking EPA has
prepared an economic analysis of the
Impacts of the regulations. Although
some communities may need to make
Improvements to their plants to meet
the primary treatment requirements, the
statute does not authorize any waiver of
those requirements on the basis of
financial hardship. In addition, EPA
believes that as shown in the economic
analysis, the final regulations’
requirements do not unduly impact
small communities in terms of overall
cost of compliance. Specifically, none of
the small communities, including the
community that Indicated in its
comments a 20 percent increase in rates,
will end up spending more than I
percent of median household Income on
wastewater treatment. Municipal
financial Impact models used by EPA
assume that ratios of westewater
treatment costs to median household
Income of less than I are not expected
to create economic hardship for
households. Moreover, although current
treatment costs may increase, small
communities will still realize an overall
cost savings if less.than-secondary
treatment is approved through the
section 301(h) process. Finally, as
discussed above, the Agency in today’s
rule has provided the opportunity for
adjusting the averaging penod for
calculating compliance with the
primary treatment requirement for BOO
under certain circumstances. This
added flexibility should further serve to
reduce any potential adverse financial
impacts. The new flexibility may allow
POTWs with dilute influent. provided It
Is not excessive l&I to qualify with less
cost to achieve compliance. The cost of
improving collection systems to fix
excessive l&I would Impact small
communities, but is not a cost of this
rule. In response to a comment that the
need for this flexibility results from
future increases in treatment capacity
due to population growth, EPA agrees
that this is not an appropriate reason.
and has not based its decision to allow
flexibility on costs of additional
treatment due to future growth. There
are other more appropriate and
legitimate reasons. as spelled out earlier
In this preamble, for some resume of
flexibility.
Section 125.81: No changes to this
section were proposed or are
promulgated today. This section
addresses the existence of, and
compliance with, water quality
standards for the pollutant for which the
modification is requested. No comments
were received.
Section 125.62: This section contains
requirements for the attainment or
maintenance of water quality which
assures protection of public water
supplies, the protection and propagation
of a balanced, indigenous population of
shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allows
recreational activities. In response to the
requirement of-WQA section 303(d) for
discharges to meet CWA section
304(afll) water quality criteria, EPA
proposed language at § 125.62(a)(llli)—
(iii) and 125.62(a)(2) and (3) to
implement that additional requirement.
The proposal also amended § 125.62(f)
to implement requirements of WQA
sectIon 303(a) regardIng combined
impacts.ofsectJon 301(h) discharges and
made a conforming change in light of
the WQA prohibition on section 301(h)
discharges to stressed estuaries to clarify
that the regulations’ stressed waters test
applies only to ocean waters. Comments
on this section addressed Issues related
to water quality criteria, Including
human health carcinogenic risk levels.
mixing zones, combined impacts, and
stressed waters.
-------
10650 Federal Register / Vol. 59, IJo. 152 / Tuesday. August 9. 1994 / Rules and Regulations
Water Quality Criteria
Under the proposal to implement the
WQA requirement that discharges meet
EPA section 304(alll) water quality
criteria. EPA would first determine
whether there is an EPA-approved State
water quality standard that directly
corresponds to the EPA section 304(a)(1)
water quality criterion for the specific
pollutant. If there is. EPA would apply
this directly corresponding State
standard. In the absence of such a State
standard, the section 304(a)(1) water
quality criterion would be applied
instead. Under the proposal. an EPA-
approved State water quality standard
would be deemed to “directly
correspond” if (a) the State water
quality standard addresses the same
pollutant as EPA’s water quality
criterion; and (b) the State water quality
standard specifies a numeric criterion
for that pollutant, or an objective
methodology for deriving such a
pollutant-specific criterion. The
preamble to the proposed rule discusses
this subject in more detail (56 FR 2818—
2819).
A commenter felt that the regulations
should require compliance with the
CWA section 304(a)(1) criteria at a
minimum, and that compliance with a
directly corresponding State standard
that may be less stringent instead was
unacceptable. The commenter argued
that Congress was aware of State water
quality standards, and had Congress
intended that an applicent’s discharge
meet State water quality standards, then
Congress would have provided language
so mandating. The commenter also
asserted that 301(h) waiver
requirements should be strictly
construed in favor of water quality
because 301(h) waivers represent an
exception to the general requirement to
meet secondary treataient Other
commenters supported the proposal to
defer to EPA-approved State water
quality standards. The commenters
believed that this approach
appropriately recognizes the State’s
discretion to set its own standards.
EPA continues to believe that
compliance with the EPA-approved.
directly corresponding State water
quality standard in lieu of the EPA
section 304(a)(1) water quality criterion
is appropriate. EPA water quality
criteria are national criteria, primarily
issued to serve as guidance for the
States to use in establishing their water
quality standards under CWA section
303.
Under the CWA. States may develop
water quality standards based on the
section 304(a)(1) criteria, as modified to
reflect site-specific conditions, or they
may use other scientifically defensible
methods for developing water quality
standards, State standards are subject to
EPA review and approval. They are
developed by the States to protect the
types of biota in, and beneficial uses of.
their local waters, and thus represent
scientifically appropriate standards for
each State’s specific situation. EPA does
not believe that, in amending section
301(h). Congress intended to interfere
with this statutory scheme, nor require
compliance with the national guidance
contained in the section 304(a)(1)
criteria when the CWA section 303
standard-setting process results in
adoption of different standards to reflect
local conditions and those standards
have been subject to EPA review and
approval. Rather. EPA believes that the
intent of this provision was to ensure
compliance with tije national section
304(a)(1) criteria in those cases where
the States have not adopted a directly
corresponding State standard and EPA
has not itself promulgated a standard in
light of such State inaction. Today’s
final rule therefore retains the
proposal’s approach. In the absence of
an EPA-approved State water quality
standard that directly corresponds to the
section 304(a)(1) water quality criteria,
the final rule requires compliance with
the section 304(a)(1) water quality
criteris.
For carcinogens, the EPA section
304(a)(1) criteria provide a range of risk
levels and corresponding criterion for
each specific risk level. In the proposal.
EPA did not establish a specific risk
level for use in the section 30 1(h)
program. As explained in the preamble
(56 FR 2819. 2820), EPA instead would
consider all relevant information in
determining the pollutant concentration
that represents an appropriate risk level
for a specific carcinogen. This
information would include evidence
that the State has consistently used a
particular risk level when establishing
its water quality standards for other
carcinogens. In the absence of such a
consistent State policy, EPA would
consider a State recommendation of a
particular risk level if the State
demonstrates to the satisfaction of EPA
that the particular risk level is justified.
The State demonstration would need to
account for the relevant exposure and
uncertainty factors, show adequate
public participation in the selection of
the risk level, and show that use of the
selected risk level is adequately
protective of human health. in cases
where there is no consistent State policy
or satisfactory State demonstration on
which to base a risk level, under the
proposal, EPA would set a specific risk
level (for example. 10-6) based on the
circumstances of each case. See
preamble to the proposed rule, 56 FR
2818—2820, for a detailed explanation oi
a satisfactory State demonstration of a
recommended risk level and EPA’s
approach to setting risk levels.
EPA received a number of comments
addressing the issue of whether to set a
specific risk level by regulation as
opposed to allowing it to be set on a
case-by-case basis. A cornmenter stated
that rather than assuming that a zero
discharge level is unattainable for any
known carcinogen. EPA should reqwre
the discharger to prove that, in fact. zero
discharge in a particular situation either
would create severe economic hardship
or is not technologically feasible. These
commenters also stated that under no
circumstances involving carcinogenic
pollutants should the allowable
discharge exceed a 106 risk level or the
applicable State standard, whichever is
more stringent Other public comments
received on the issue of water quality
criteria for carcinogens also said the
regulations should specify a human
health risk level that is no less
protective than the 106 incremental
cancer risk and asserted that EPA had
done so in other national programs. One
commenter stated that there should not
be a flexible, case-by-case approach
toward establishing risk levels for
carcinogens. Instead, the commenter
suggested that EPA establish a
minimum risk level, the least protective
risk level that is acceptable. (and
corresponding maximum permissible.
discharge concentration) but allow for
flexibility to choose a more stringent
risk level based upon a given State’s
past practice.
With regard to the zero-risk level, as
mentioned in the preamble to the
proposed rule. EPA believes that a zero
effluent concentration is essentially
unattainable. Therefore, EPA has
approved numeric State water quality
standards for carcinogens under CWA
section 303 that correspond to risk
levels above zero. The approach
adopted in the proposed rule provides
consideration of the State’s views on an’
appropriate risk level, or in the absence
of such State input, provides for EPA to
consider all relevant information in
setting a risk level. EPA believes that
establishing a presumption in favor of a
zero risk level would be inappropriate
because even apart from questions of
achievability, compliance could not be
demonstrated due to limitations in
analytical methods. Further, the
commenter provided no basis to refute
EPA’s belief that zero risk levels are not
achievable. EPA thus is not amending
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 152/ Tuesday, August 9. 1994 / Rules and Regulations
40651
the regulations to establish a
presumptive zero risk level.
With regard to whether the section
301(h) regulations should establish a
single uniform risk level for use in the
section 301(h) program, the
establishment of risk levels is a national
issue which is not limited to the section
301(h) program. As noted in the
preamble to the proposed rule (56 FR
28 19). EPA expected that many or most
coastal States aLready had established or
soon would establish one or more EPA-
approved water quality standards for
toxic carcinogenic pollutants, pursuant
to section 303(c)(2)(B) of the CWA.
Subsequent to the proposal of these
revised section 301(h) regulations. EPA
applied risk levels in the National
Toxics Rule, which sets water quality
standards for priority pollutants in
Stat s that did not have approved
standards. pursuant to Sections
303(c)(2)(B) and 303(c)(4) of the CWA
(57 FR 60848, December 22. 1992). More
specifically, the National Toxics Rule
establishes water quality standards
pollutant-by-pollutant for fourteen
States that did not have an EPA-
approved standard for the toxic
pollutant in question where section
304(a)(1) water quality a tena have
been developed. EPA set legally
enforceable water quality standards
with incremental cancer risk levels for
carcinogens and corresponding numeric
values based on specific exposure and
other modeling assumptions. It should
be noted that EPA did not adopt a
uniform nationwide 10-6 risk level in
other contexts. e.g.. the National Toxics
Rule, as suggested by a commenter. who
advocated that as a minimum level of
protection.
In each State covered by the National
Toxics Rule, the carcinogenic risk level
used to set the State’s standard(s) was
based on the best information available
to the Agency regarding that State’s
policy or practice for risk levels used or
that should be used in regulating
carcinogens in surface waters, For most
of the affected States, the risk level Is
based on a State-adopted or formally
proposed risk level. For some, the risk
level is based on an expressed State
policy preference. With the National
Toxics Rule, all States are now in
ompiianco with section 303(c)(2)(B).
Hnce, for purposes of implementing
§ 125.62, EPA will now look to the
guidance contained in the preamble and
regulations of the National Toxics Rule
to establish the appropriate human
h alth risk level and numeric value in
the abscr.ce of a directly corresponding
State standard fur any section 304(a)(1)
criterion later est.’thlishei.
EPA believes that the carcinogenic
risk provisions of proposed
§ 125.62(a)(2)(ii) are consistent with the
National Toxics Rule, 40 FR § 131.38,
and the guidance provided in the
preamble to the rule (57 FR 60848).
Accordingly, today’s rule at
§ 125.62(a)(ii) is promulgated as
proposed. with a minor editorial
change. In the absence of an EPA-
approved State water quality standard
for a carcinogenic pollutant, the
Administrator will consider a
consistently used, or State-adopted or
formally proposed risk level
recommendation with a satisfactory
demonstration that the level is
adequately protective of human health
in Light of exposure and uncertainty
factors and population exposed.
Exposure factors would include, for
example. local patterns of fish
consumption, cumulative effects of
multiple contaminants and local
population sensitivities. Factors related
to uncertainty would include, for
example. the weight of scientific
evidence concerning exposures and
health effects and the reliability of
exposure data.
One commenter noted that
determinations of compliance with
water quality criteria will be dependent
on the frequency and types of sampling
methods used and the effects industrial
users’ pretreatment programs have on
effluent quality. The commenter urged a
flexible approach in determining
compliance because of these variables.
EPA notes. in response. that the
regulations do not specify rigid
sampling requirements and frequencies.
and thus already allow for consideration
In designing sampling programs to
adequately characterize effluent quality
for purposes of evaluating compliance
with water quality critena.
New section 301(h)(9) of the CWA
requires that the discharge meet the
section 304(a)(1) water quality criteria
“alter initial mixing in the waters
surrounding or adjacent to the point at
which (thel effluent is discharged.” The
zone of initial dilution (ZID) is defined
in existing § 125.53(w) as “the region of
initial mixing surrounding or adjacent
to the end of the outfall pipe or diffuser
ports. provided that the ZID may not be
larger than allowed by mixing zone
restrictions in applicabie water quality
standards.” The existing 1982
regulations required that all applicable
State water quality standards adopted
under section 303 of the CWA be met
at and oeyond the boundary of the ZID.
New lar.guage was proposed in
§ 125.C(a)(1)(i) to implement the
requirec ent of new section 301(h)(9) to
c mply “ith the sect:on 3C4(a)(1) water
quality criteria or the directly
corresponding State water quality
standards, but inadvertently omitted
those State water quality standards that
do not directly correspond to the section
304(aWl) water quality criteria. In so
doing, EPA inadvertently omitted the
existing requirement that all applicable
State water quality standards, including
those that do not directly correspond.
must still be met at and beyond the ZID.
This requirement has been retained in
the final regulation. For purposes of this
discussion, there are three categories of
water quality requirements: State water
quality standards that directly
correspond to water quality criteria,
State water quality standards that do not
directly correspond to water quality
criteria, and water quality criteria. It is
the second category, those State water
quality standards that do not directly
correspond to water quality criteria, that
was inadvertently left out of the
proposed regulation.
Two commenters questioned whether
the proposed rule, by referring to the
ZID for purposes of calculating
compliance with section 303 State water
quality standards, raised a potential
conflict with State-specified mixing
zones adopted as part of the section 303
standard-setting process. One of these
commenters requested that the
regulations be clarified to specify that
compliance with State water quality
standards is to be determined under the
methods and conditions specified by the
State in its standards.
EPA agrees that the proposed
language could create confusion.
Today’s final rule includes the existing
requirement of the 1982 regulations that
all applicable State water quality
standards adopted under section 303 of
the CWA be met at and beyond the
boundary of the ZflD and promulgates as
proposed the new section 301(h)(9)
requirement. The effect of today’s rule is
to retain the existing practice of the
section 301(h) program in determining
cempliance with State water quality
standards. As stated in the preamble to
the proposed rule. EPA’s purpose in
promulgating these revisions to the
regulations on this issue was to
implement the new requirements of the
WQA. EPA did not intend to change
existing regulatory requirements not
affected by the WQA. As promulgated
today. § 125.62(a)(1) reflects the existing
regulations with the additional
requirements of’ section 301(h) 9) of the
GVA, and EPA intends no changes to
how determinations of compliance with
State water quality standards are made,
One commenter pointed to
inconsistencies between language in tS3
tc±nical ‘.ipport document (T3D on
-------
1O 52 Pederal Register I VoL. 59. No. 1521 Tuesday. August 9. 1994 / Rules and
ZID size end the actual definition of the
Zfl) as consai’ed In S 125.5$dd) of the
regulatiaimendiequuted that ihisbe
addsessedW amendIng the D
de5nt on. Th dafin*t1on was not
proposed fur amendment in die 1991
proposal mid is eotbeingchanged
today. EPA . .spooded to the comment
by adding a darilkmtion to the final
TSD on the technical Issues regarding
calcola of the size.
Combined Impacts of Discharge
Section 303(alof the WQA requires an
ap--- .te that the
section 30 1th1 modified discharge will
not interfere. el ario.comtñnancn
with poU nts fresu other smnces. with
the att I,i ,d ersnrnflhl . I . .i . ’ of water
quality to theuses specified in
sectioo.39t4h3(2$.As noted in the
praainkrle In the penpased iule*6 F
281 .ikhengii EPA believes this
requirement is oenthstent with the
existIng 1982 regulations. EPA added
langi .inf. .uF ..—d § 125.62 (0 tO
clanfythispeiet. Preposed § 125.52 ( 1 1
requires an apphcant to demonstrate
that its modthed dii hmg meets
§ 125.62(al t .ugh(e1. both alone, and
takiag into aI’r unt the discharge in
combma nn with pthutants from other
soimmi.
One commenter noted that
cumnlathe:. ,, 1 a —.-- .’ents would
need .tebe f ed.to demonstrate
that the WTW is notcanmng impact
aloneerin bination with other
dischargers and that the .infonnation
needed to make the asse eai may not
be available. The coiwnentar
recomemeds that EPA pronde surncient
guidance on performing the needed
cumulative impact assessments.
inc iudinginfcrmatiou i on regional waste
load aihw i nonpoint source
a aeneficial use
quanti9catiou. arid regional water
quality monitoring data. EPA agrees that
such inforinatirm would be useful in
making the required siarnonstration of
compliance. The mma lability of such
site pecific information sutli vary
dependmgun looni c nstances
applicants should work closely with
their EPA Region and State water
agencies te4dentify possible sources of
such information. EPA considered this
comment and made changes to the final
TSD for theregulatlons4n order :o
provide additional guidance on this
issue.
Stressed Waters
EPA received comments on two
related aspects of the statutory
requirements and regulatory provisions
regarding stze a d waters: (II
Cernonetrating that no causal
relatiendip exists between stressed
conditions and the npplicant’.s
di ds .ege,and 2 . hU son
301 (h) modf fled disdiarges to stressed
saline estuaries. One cemmentervu
§ 125.6Ztflffl esJi (33 (the stressed
waters testi requested that EPA state
that an app1 nt ont still make the
demonstration required by I 125.62(0
(1) through (3lby sbuwiiig that no
causal relationship exists between the
stressed conditions and the applicanrs
discharge. Other enteia sopported
the coetizered to
demonstrate that on causal relationship
exists between the stressed conditions
and the proposed section 3g1(hl
modified discharge. As’previously
noted. parsgraphs(f) (11 through (3) axe
the same as ions contained inthe
existing 1982 section 301(h) regulations.
and applicants must demonstrate an
absenee of a causal relationship between
their discharge and stressed conditions
as specified in those paragraphs. The
three substantive tequi ments for such
a demonstration were not proposed for
change. s in the past. applicants
invoking this provision may avoid the
need to demonstrate compliance with
paragraphs (ai’thrimgh (e)by
demonstrating that the modified
discharge does noti
(1) Contribute 10. OT
perpetuate stressed couthticns
(2) Contribute to Further degradation
and
(3) Reined iecseety if perturbations
from udmrauurcosdeaeeae.
To reiter . despite the addition of
the word “entirely.” air applicant still
can makethe demonstration required y
§ 1’5 . 62 ( ) (e through (3) by showing
that no retationsbip.exists
between the stressed conditions and its
pwp r edd ischaxge.
Prior to the 1.987 WQA. section 301(h)
and the 198Z uiplementing regulations
allowed eim 301 (h) modified
discharges to stressed waters only wider
certain limited conditions, with no
distinction made between stressed
saline estuaries and stressed ocean
watero. The 1987 WQA amendments
tighten ‘this restriction with respect to
salineessvanesby prohibiting section
30 1 (b) modified discharges altogether to
saline estueriesthat are stressed (i.e..
that exhibitanrtain characteristics
specdied in the statute). The
amendments also specify that this
prohibition applies without regard to
whother it is the applicant s discharge
that iscausing or would cause the
stressed water quality conditions. To
implement this new statutory
prohibition. EPA proposed a change to
the existing regulations regarding
stressed waters. EPP proposed adding
this new prohibition to 5 125.59(bU4).
and making confenniag changes to
§ 125.62 (F) to prohibit section 30 1 (h)
waivers where stressed saline estuaries
are involved. SectIon 125.62(f) is the
provision that allows discharges to
stressed waters under certain
conditions. The proposal altered this
provision so that such discharges would
he allowed only with respect to stressed
ocean waters and not saline estuarine
waters.
Coinmenters eAprv sGd The view that
Congress did let intend te make section
3OUh waivers available for any
severely degraded waters, whether in
estuaries or oceans. and recommended
limiting the meadi of the stressed waters
exception to Those locations where
severe environmental degradation has
not occurred. Thecommentere noted
that if an esception must be available to
POTWs discharging to stressed waters.
the commentera .uypurted the approach
taken in proposed 5125.82(0. In
response to this coimnent. EPA notes
that the 1987 WQA flatly prohibits
section 301(hJmnrH tions with
respect tost evdestuaries only. hr
contrast, applicants can satisfy 301(hl(Z)
by showing that their discharges will
not “iritorfem, alone or in combination.”
with certain waterquality obie as.
EPA that § 125.52(f)
fully meets this statutory directive.
There is ae basis for the suggestion that
Congress categorically to
prohibit waivers with r -pcat to all
stressed waters. Indeed, the legislative
history crtedby the CO .w &1iir does not
lead to a contrary opmion. EPA believes
that the provisions adopted in today’s
final regulations.t. implement the WQA
prohibition on discharges to
estuaries are foUy consistent with the
statute and that extending this
prohihulian.Io.ocean waters would be
inconsistent with the plain statutory
language. Acoordingly. the stressed
waters provisaon in.this section is
promulgated as proposed.
Section 125.63: This section outlines
the general requirements for momtoring
programs required under section
30 1(h)(3) of the CWA. In the proposal.
EPA added language to this section to
respond to section 303(b) of the WQA.
which restricts the required scope of
section 301(h) biological monitoring
programs to those scientifIc
invest :gations necessary to study the
effects of the proposed discharge. EPA
also noted in the preamble to the
proposed rule that the requirements of
such monitoring programs under the
existing regulations are in fact already
focused on the effects of the discharge.
The proposal also added a requirement
that applicants monitor their discharges
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 152 I Tuesday, August 9, 1994 I Rules and Regulations
40653
to ensure compliance with water quality
criteria (if applicable under § 125.62(a)),
in addition to water quality standards
based on the provision of section
3 01(h)(9).
EPA received one comment regarding
monitoring. The commenter requested
that EPA add a provision for amending
monitoring programs in existing
permits. including permits
administratively extended beyond their
expiration dates, when the changes are
technically justified. EPA appreciates
that changes to section 301(h)
monitoring programs during the life of
the permit may be appropriate. EPA
notes that this is a procedural issue
governed by the NPDES regulations and
is not the subject of this rulemaking. See
40 CFR 122.5.
Monitoring for Removal Efficiency
Requirements
Some commenters suggested that the
demonstration of removal efficiency
(defined as removal of 30 percent of
BOO and TSS) should be made
throughout the year. and not simply at
the time the modification becomes
affective. Other comments suggested
that EPA require a demonstration of
removal efficiency of BOO as an initial
threshold determination only, that is. a
one-time demonstration. In response.
EPA believes that demonstration of the
removal efficiency should be an ongoing
requirement. and § 125.60(b) requires
that compliance be demonstrated based
on monthly averaging, as proposed
(subject to the exceptions discussed
above). In addition, the statute does not
state a one-time requirement but instead
envisions an ongoing requirement that
the applicant “will be” discharging
effluent that has received primary
treatment. Given the statutory
requirement for primary treatment, it
would make little sense to require a one-
time demonstration of removal
efficiency. with the possible result that
less .than-primary treatment could occur
during the course of the section 301(b)
modified permit and go undetected.
To ensure that data are available for
purposes of section 301(h) permit
renewals, ongoing monitoring of
compliance with the removal efficiency
requirement is necessary. EPA thus
continues to believe that section 301(h)
permittees should monitor for
compliance with the primary treatment
requirement over the life of the permit
at the frequency required in § 125.60
(i.e.. monthly, unless a less frequent
monitoring period is specified).
.lthough already required in
125.60(b), to clarify this point the final
rule adds a new paragraph.
§ 125.63(dH2), to ensure that the permit
monitoring requirements provide
adequate data for demonstrating
compliance with the removal efficiency
requirement over the life of the permit.
EPA is also making a conforming
change to § 125.63(a)(1)(i) to clarify that
monitoring programs must be designed
to evaluate water quality criteria, as well
as water quality standards. This
conforms to the proposed change in
§ 125.63(c). reflecting WQA language.
Changes to Monitoring Requirements
Some commenters requested that EPA
identify the practical impact the new
limitation on the scope of monitoring
will have on current monitoring
programs. As previously discussed, EPA
does not believe that WQA language
limiting section 301 (h) biological
monitoring to investigations necessary
to evaluate the discharge effects
represents a substantial change in the
program. The purpose of the required
monitoring programs has always been to
evaluate discharge effects. Since the
monitoring program was already
focused on evaluating discharge effects,
the new statutory and regulatory
language should not result in substantial
changes to existing monitoring
programs.
Other commenters expressed concern
over potentially increased monitoring
costs. The additional monitoring
requirements to ensure compliance with
the WQA’s water quality criteria and
primary or equivalent treatment
requirements are a necessary and
reasonable outgrowth of those new
statutory requirements. Given those
substantive requirements and the need
for data to evaluate continued
compliance and to support future
requests for permit renewal, EPA
believes it is necessary to require
monitoring in these areas. As with other
section 301(h) monitoring requirements.
the exact nature and frequency of such
monitoring by a particular applicant
would be set on a permit-by-permit
basis in order to reflect individual
circumstances. Burdens associated with
these monitoring requirements were
addressed in the supporting
documentation for the information
collection request accompanying the
regulations. Although some extra costs
may be incurred, many of these are one-
time costs, and are not excessive.
especially in light of the economic
benefits to the discharger receiving a
section 301(h) waiver.
Section 125.64:This section contains
criteria related to the impacts of the
modified discharge on other point and
nonpoint sources and implements
section 301(h)(4) of the C VA. There
were no proposed changes to this
section and no comments were received.
This section remains unchanged.
Section 125.65: This new section setc
foiih the urban area pretreatment
program requirements of section 303(c)
of the WQA (CWA section 301(h116))
These requirements apply to POTWs
serving a population of 50.000 or more.
with respect to any toxic pollutant as
defined by § 125.58(aa) introduced m l ”
the POTW by an industrial source.
Applicants subject to this provision
must demonstrate that industrial
sources are in compliance with all
applicable pretreatment requirements.
and that the appticant will enforce thn
requirements. Also, for each toxic
pollutant for which there is no
applicable pretreatment requirement in
effect, the applicant must have in effect
a pretreatment program which, in
combination with the treatment of
discharges from the POfl,V, removes the
same amount of such pollutant as would
be removed if the POTW were to apply
secondary treatment and had no
pretreatment program for such
pollutant.
To implement these provisions, the
proposed rule added § 125.65 and added
or revised certain definitions in
§ 125.58. Proposed § 125.65(a)(2)
clan fled that the requirements of
§ 125.65 are to apply in addition to an
applicable pretreatment requirements
contained in 40 CFR part 403 and that
nothing in § 125.65 is intended to wam’.e
or relax the 40 CFR part 403
requirements.
Section 125.65 provides two methods
For satisfying the urban area
pretreatment requirements. For each
toxic pollutant introduced by an
industrial discharger, the applicant
must demonstrate that it either (1) has
an “applicable pretreatment
requirement in effect” or (2) has in
effect a program that achieves
“secondary removal equivalency “EPA
received a number of comments
requesting clarification of this
provision, as well as comments related
to pretreatment requirements, which
toxic pollutants should be subject to
urban area pretreatment requirements
demonstration of secondary
equivalency, and enforcement of
pretreatment requirements.
Scope of Pollutants to be Addressed
Some cornmenters believe that the
urban area pretreatment program
requirements should apply only to
“pollutants of concern,” rather than
applying to all priority pollutants
introduced by industrial dischargers
Commenters were concerned that the
requirements might be interpreted to
apply to all 126 priority pollutants.
-------
40fi54 Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 152 1 Tuesday. August 9. 1994 / Rules and ogulatiens
whether or not these am.kna&en at
suspected to be4llschatged to the POTW
by industry. They believe the uthae area
pietreatminit ti9uiriiinenXsjheuld be
km ed to these priodty pollutants that
are speciflcafly known to poses threat
or potential Threat to bunLan 1iiii iIth ,
safety. or environmental iality. These
commentars stated that pollutants of
concern should not include pollutants
that do not pose such a risk and
provided several options for identifying
pollutants of concern. i.e.. by excluding
from coverage pollutants (1) only
discharged in small amounts by one
industry: 1 meeting water quality
standards at the boundary of initial
mixing: (3) disrherg 4 in effluent at a
threshold level percent of an applicable
water quality standard. criterion, or
permit limit 14J discharged in low
concentrations 153 which do not
interfere or threaten to interfere with the
attainment ormaintpvtnnr of water
quality objectives.as found in § 125.52.,
or (6) not detected in the effluent of the
POTW. These cosnmenters felt that
developing local limits for all toxic
pollutants would be difficult and overly
burdensome. The commentate further
stated that a distinctrnn should be made
between signi&ant and insigiuficant
industrial dischargezs.
EPA has not adopted these suggested
changes in todays rule. The statute
clearly states that the urban area
pretreatment requirement applies I D any
toxic pollutant Introduced into the
POTW by an industrial discharger.
Therefore. EPA believes the regulations
should address all such toxic pollutants.
However. this means only those toxic
pollutants known or suspected to be
introduced to the POTW by an
industrial discharger. Thus. if all 126
prionty pollutants are not discharged to
a given POTW, not all 126 priority
pollutants will need an applicable
pretreatment requirement. e.g.,
categorical standard or local limit. EPA
notes. however, that the industrial
users survey must be comprehensive.
addressing all non-domestic sources, to
assure that the POTW lakes all taxics
from industrial sources into account.
Guidance is provided in the TSD to help
identify toxics known or suspected to be
discharged from several industries not
subiect to categorical pretreatment
regulations.
One commenter assorted that
receiving waters should be the focus of
this requirement that is, it is
inappropriate to have technology-based
requirements when receiving waters do
not warrant them. The commenter
further stated that the requirement
should focus on whole effluent toxicity.
In response. EPA notes that the statutory
provision ä4edinela p - ed , nod
refers to each 1mdupollnem fatindruxid
by andu al sources. OtherCl Ytia r
Act prevwona address whele effluent
toxicity n od This lies been • into
account.
Applicable Pretreaunent Requirements
As specified ia 125.55 c)o1the
proposed . regiilatinnc applicable
pretreatment requirements could take
the form of lederal categorical
pretreatment standards promulgated by
EPA wider ii .307 althe OVA.
local limits developed in - ‘r4Iance
with 40 ’& .part 403.eracembination
of both. As proposed, therefore,
appl ble pre eatment requirements
consist oldie following as stated in
§ 125.65(cl:
( II f o r each sndusthal source
discharging to the applicant’s treatment
works for which there is no applicable
categori I pretreatment cian d forthe
toxic pollutant, a local limit or limits on
the toxic pollntant cstislying the
requirements of 40 CFR part 403 and
§ 12.5.52.,
(ii) for each industrial sow
di h rging to the applicant’s treatment
works that is subject to a categoncal
pretreatment standard for the toxic
pollutant, the categorical standard plus
a local limit or Iinntsuaec.ccaryto
satisfy the requäeiuents o140 CFR part
403 and §125.52.
One stated that
“applicable pretreatment requirements”
should be developed to ensure
compliance with 40 R pen 403 and
not also to ensure compliance with
requirements in § 125.62. which
addresses pintection of a balanced
indigenous population (BU’I. This
commenter pointed out that the
requirelnenisin achieve a SB’ already
must be satisfied under § 125.62 if the
section 301(bi permit modification is to
be granted. Further, it is unnecessarily
restnctive.to specify that the BIP
requireinenasbe met by applying local
limits retharthara through other means.
EPA . gi and hahcfarafied this
provisioninthe final rule by deleting
the reference to § 125.62 from § 125.65
(cl(1P (I ). LW and L21. Any section 301(hl
discharge must comply with the BIP
requirem of the regulations. but how
this is achieved, whether by local
pretreatment standards or other toxins
control measures, is at the discretion of
the applicant. The Agency never
intended to require that Local limits
alone must be shown to independently
protect a SIP. The intent was that local
limits would be developed to meet 40
CFR part 403aad § 125.65 and would be
at least ese.aspect of overall toxic
control efforts by the applicant that
wora&dco ’jbige asa wheleto’meeting
the mcpdmmentsof a DIP. It should be
noted. b eer. that conditIons
necessary to ieee mid perpetuate a
BIP may be used as a basis for setting
a local limit.
Because the regulations already
requne compliance wIth § 125.62. and
in light of theconoerns raised over
linkage of local limits to the 125.62
requirement. EPA is making this change
to the final regulations. This change
does not alter the requirement to meet
all other section 3OUtil previsions.
Some commentare alieve that
provisions should he included for local
limits to consider sludge quality and the
potential for airtsoac emissions. under
the Agescy’sexisting local limit
program under 40 R part 403. and
sewage sludge regulations at 40 CFR
pails 257. 403 and 503. local limits may
be required where necessary to protect
sludge quality se as not to interfere with
its management and ultimate disposal or
beneficial use, and where necessary to
protect plant workers. The ptetreatner.t
regulations address air toxic emissions
within the PO’fl V to protect worker
health and safety.Thecommenteis’
concerns regarding sledge quality and
incineration, and resultant air emissions
are addressed by the Agency’s
pretreatment regulations, sewage sludge
regulations and regulations imder the
aean Air Act. The Agency has begun to
address standards for air-toxic emissiOnS
from POTWs,
The commerite taken as a whole show
some confusion about how EPA expects
the “applicable pretreatment
requirement in effect” provision of the
urban area pretreatment program to be
implemented. Coinmenters were
concerned that these requirements were
overly burdensome and sought
flexibi.lAty. Commenteirs pointed out that
requirements for every industrial user
are unnecessary for ensuring an
adequate local limit ferthotoxic
pollutant. After sidering these
comments. EPA has revised its approach
as follows. Fiset.t*iPOTW need ivet
apply a specific local limit te each and
every industrial source of each toxic
pollutant. Instead, after conducting a
local Ii” *e analysis, the POTW may
apportion the aLlocation to industrial
sources of the toxic us the way that the
POTW deems m apprupnata. subject
to the approval of the Regional
Admimstrator. This could include not
imposing any Limit forthe pollutant on
certain industrial users. This
modification should achieve the same
end result as the proposal. that is, to
attain the same level of toxic pollutant
reduction, while providing flexibility to
the P01W to implement the provision
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 152 I Tuesday. August 9. 1994 / Rules and Regulations
40655
The Guidance Manual on the
Deve1o . .eui end bnplw wntation of
Local Dischmge Limitations under the
Pretreazmeitt Program d6u ws how to
allocate local limits industrial
sources for all POTWs. not just 301(h)
applicants. EPA believes that the
approach of POTWs under 30l(hfl6l
should be consistent with that guidance.
This approach is less burdensome to
implement while still achieving
equivalent reductions in toxics.
Second. the applicant can show an
applicable pr Izratment requirement in
effecr for those toxic pollutants for
which these is no applicable categorical
pretreatment standard. and for which
the applicant determines, based on the
40 CFR part 403 analyses. that a local
limit is not necessary. The permtt in
these cases wilt require the applicant to
demonstrate on an annual basis over the
permit term, that a local limit is not
necessary and. where appropriate, will
require the applicant to inswute
industrial management practiom plans.
The following steps are intended to
clarify how EPA will implement the
applicab4e pretreatment requirement in
effect’ provision for toxic pollutants:
(lIThe applicant must conduct an
industrial user surwy as requited by 40
CFR part 403 and S 125.66:
(2) The applicant must conduct
epresentatwe sampling and analysis of
the POTW’; influent. effluent. and
sludge for toxic pollutants:
(3) The applicant must implement the
national categorical standards for each
industrial seurca subject to categorical
standards:
(4) For those toxic pollutants known
or suspected to be introduced by an
industrial sowca. the applicant must
conduct an analysis under 40 CFR part
403 to assess the need for local limits;
(5) For those toxic pollutants for
which the applicant determines, based
on the 40 R part 403 analysis, a need
for local limits, the applicant must set
local limits:
(6) For those toxic pollutants for
which the applicant determines, based
on the 40 U ’R part 403 analysis, that
local limits ate not necessary. the
applicant must continue to monitor the
POT%V influent and effluent during the
term of the permit andloi’ conduct
technical reviews of data on discharges
from industrial sources during the term
of the permit, and where appropriate
require industrial users to institute
industrial management practices plans
(IMPs) and other pollution prevention
act ivities, to reduce or control the levels
( these toxic pollutants from industrial
.ources. These plans and activities
r. uId include Best Management
Practices (BMPs). See TSD and EPA
Guidance Manual on the Development
and ImplementatIon of Local Discharge
Limitations under the Pretreatment
Program (1987 and 19813. For these
toxic pollutants, applicants would be
required to assure EPA on an annual
basis that these particular toxic
pollutants do not result in levels that
warrant development of local limits. U
such monitoring and tochnical review of
data indicate that a local limit is
needed, the POTW shall establish and
implement a local limit.
The basic philosophy of instituting
industrial management practice plans
(IMPs) is to minimize the discharge of
toxic or hazardous pollutants to the
sewer, or reduce the impact of toxic!
hazardous poilutant discharges by
avoiding short4erni. high concentration
discharges. IMPs can be applied to all
classes of industrial users. e.g.. major
and mm idustrial users. Ezamples of
‘appropriate uses of IMPs include
control of chemical spills and sludge
discharges to the POTW through formal
chemical or waste management plans
(including BMPsJ. solvent management
plans. batch discharge polides. waste
recycling and waste minimization, ii
would also be appropriate to consider
DiPs in cases where the PCJTW does not
include biological trev,n ni pi c ac.
or provides less treatment. e.g.. primary
treatment
In these cases, IMPs can be tailored
for industrial sources of toxic pollutants
that might otherwise interfere with
biological treatment or would be
degraded or removed through additional
treatment.
EPA has added this information to the
reguLations in response to comments.
The intent of these steps is to set forth
a process that is not overly burdensome
for applicants but that assures that
applicable pretreatment requirements
are in effect for each toxic pollutant.
Secondary Removal Equivalency
Under section 301(h)(6) and 125.65.
where there is no applicable
pretreatment requirement as described
above for a toxic pollutant known or
suspected to be introducEd by an
industrial discharger, the applicant
must demonstrate that it has in effect a
pretreatment program which, in
combination with the POTW’s own
treatment of discharges. removes the
same amount of the pollutant as would
be removed if the POTW were to apply
secondary treatment to discharges and if
such works had no pretreatment
program with respect to the pollutant.
EPA has termed this the “secondary
removal equivalency ’ requirement and
the proposed rule added this term to the
del’initions in t25.58(w). To meet the
“secondary removal equivalency”
requirement, the applicant must
demonstrate that the combination of its
own treatment plus pretreatment by
industrial disthargezs achieves
removal equivalency.”
Under today’s final rule, to
demonstrate e, .ruidaiy removal
equivalency, an applicant would need
to use a secondary treatment pilot plant.
By diverting part of its u te stream to
the pilot plant altar pnn&azy treatment
the applicant would empirically
determine the amount of a toxic
pollutant that would be removed from
the waste stream it the applicant were
to apply hill-scale semndary treatment.
The applicant would then need to
demonstrate to EPA that it has a
pretreatment program in effect which, in
combination with its own treatment
processes. removes at least that total
amount of toxic pollutant from the
POTW’s discharge. achieved through
concentration- and mass emisnons-
based effluent limits. If at least that
amount is not removed, then further
reductions of the pollutant would be
required. The NPOES permit will
include concentration andlor mass
emissions effluent limits based on the
data from the c rnnda,y equivaleacy
demonstration when those values are
more stringent than effluent Limits based
on State water quality standards or
water quality ontario. if applicable, and
to assure that all of the §301 (h) a’uena
are met, Once such effluent limits are
established in an NPDES permit, the
POTW may either establish local limits
or perform additional treatment at the
POflV. or combine the two to achieve
the permit limit.
Some commenters thought that they
would be penaliaed for having an
existing pretreatment program if they
used preheated waste to determine
secondary equivalency, because of the
undetermined removals by current
industrial pretreatment. They urged the
use of procedures for deterixunieg pre-
existing (prior to soiuce aintioll
condinons to take into account e’cisting
toxic pollutant reductions and
commented on the difficulty of
obtaining “unpretreated” industrial
was*ewaters. Other comrnenters thought
that the secondary removal equivalency
demonstration should be made with all
other pretreatment requirements
required by section 301(hH5 ) in place.
because they reasoned that the section
301(hJ program does net provide
waivers from the tonics requirements.
EPA agrees that the section 301(b)
program does ant provide a waiver from
toxics control requirements. and the
ecisting section 301(h) program already
has toicics control requirements.
-------
40656 Federal Register_/ Vol. 59, No. 152 I Tuesday. August 9, 19!4 I Rules and Regulations
including industrial pretreatment. in
effect. However, the secondary removal
equivalency provision of section
301(hR6) addresses only those toxic
pollutants that do not have applicable
pretreatment requirements in effect. and
that are being introduced by industrial
sources to POTWe seiving urban areas.
POTWs will not be penalized for
having an applicable pretreatment
requirement in effect for a particular
toxic pollutant. If the POTW has an
applicable pretreatment requirement in
effect for a specific toxic pollutant, as
described in § 125.65, it will be in
compliance with § 125.65 with respect
to that pollutant. and the POTW will not
need to comply with the “secondary
removal equivalency” requirement for
that pollutant.
There may. however, be reduced
levels of other toxics that are discharged
to the POTW owing to incidental
removals from applicable pretreatment
requirements targeted to remove specific
toxic pollutants. Likewise, there may be
reduced levels of a specific toxic
pollutant discharged to the POTW from
categorical pretreatment for that toxic
pollutant that may not satisfy the
conditions of an applicable pretreatment
requirement in effect. Because neither of
these two above situations satisfy the
requirements of “applicable
pretreatment requirement in effect”
with respect to these toxic pollutants,
the applicant would need to
demonstrate secondary removal
equivalency for them. It may be true that
the cumulative removal will be lower if
pretreated influent is used. EPA does
not expect this situation to occur often
because if an applicable pretreatment
requirement exists for a particular toxic
pollutant, then a secondary removal
equivalency demonstration is not
needed for that toxic pollutant. This
situation is only likely if some
pretreatment occurs for other pollutants.
One commenter asserted that
secondary treatment removal
equivalency is highly impractical and
appears to resurrect EPA’s discredited
“removal credit” system. In response.
the statute focuses on the levels of toxic
pollutants that are removed through a
combination of pretreatment and POTW
treatment processes, regardless of where
the removal occurs.
Some commenters felt that the term
“removals” should not include
removals obtained by air volatilization
and through sludge because this is
simply a transfer of a pollution problem
between media. EPA notes that
removals obtained by a secondary pilot
plant are used simply to determine the
amount of additional pretreatment and!
or POTW treatment if any, that would
be needed to meet secondary removal
equivalency. For purposes of achieving
removals through a combination of a
POTW’s treatment and pretreatment.
EPA will not consider pollutants that
remain in sludge or are volatilized as
removed, except those removals that are
consistent with sludge and pretreatment
regulations. As noted in the discussion
on “applicable pretreatment
requirements,” EPA’s pretreatment and
sludge regulations do apply in any case
to any POTW treatment processes and
sludge produced from the PCT’vV.
Some cominenters suggested that EPA
identify technology.based limits for
demonstrating secondary removal
equivalency, citing EPA’s Fa:e of
Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned
Treatment Works. Vol. 1 (Sept. 19821
and Vol. II (Sept, 1982) as a basis for
establishing such limits. In response, in
EPAs judgement, the above cited
studies demonstrate that each POTW’s
influent is unique based on a variety of
factors. Secondary treatment removes
toxics incidental to the technology for
reducing BOD and SS, and results in
great variability in the levels of toxic
and non-conventional pollutants in
effluent and sludge. The Act clearly
puts the burden on the applicant to
demonstrate and not on EPA to develop
uniform technology-based standards. In
any event, developing uniform
technolog based standards would be
very difficult because of the variability
of influents. pretreatment levels, and
other site-specific conditions. Therefore.
EPA has not developed technology-
based limits representing characteristic
removal of toxic pollutants from
secondary treatment.
Commenters also asked EPA to
address the costs of the pilot plant
approach. These costs are addressed in
the Economic Impact Analysis.
In summary, for those toxic pollutants
for which there is no applicable
pretreatment requirement in effect, the
POTW must either (1) develop and
implement an applicable pretreatment
requirement or (2) demonstrate, through
a combination of pretreatment by
industry and the POTW’s own treatment
processes. that it removes at least as
much of the toxic pollutant as would be
removed by a POTW that applies
secondary treatment and that has no
pretreatment program for the pollutant.
Guidance is provided in the TSD.
Compliance Determination
Several commenters stated that EPA
needs to address how a POflV wall
demonstrate that all of its industrial
dischargers are in compliance with the
pretreatment requirements and that EPA
would allow less than 100 percent
compliance. Some suggested that EPA
should allow POTWe to demonstratø
compliance with all applicable
pretreatment requirements by taking ail
appropriate legal and administrative
enforcement actions to enforce
pretreatment requirements. Others
thought that accommodating less than
100 percent compliance would
introduce considerable uncertainty
concerning the level of compliance EPI
will deem to be adequate and the
regulations should identify a definite
standard by which to gauge compliancP
with this new standard. In addition.
commenters have provided examples of
when less than full compliance will b
considered acceptable, such as instances
of trivial or isolated violations
For urban area POTWs with
significant numbers of industrial users.
at any given time, it is reasonable to
expect that at least one or more of those
users might be out of compliance. EPA
intends to determine a POT’V’s
continuing eligibility for a 301(h) waiver
under section 301(h)(6) by measuring
indust.nal user compliance and POT\V
enforcement activities against existing
a’itena in the Agency’s National
Pretreatment Program. In the proposed
rule. EPA explained that it would
consider the issue of compliance with
the pretreatment requirements on a
case-by-case basis, taking into account
the number and nature of non-
compliances. In 1989. EPA established
criteria for determining POT’vV
compliance with pretreatment
implementation obligations. One
element of these criteria is the level of
significant noncompliance of the
PCTW’s industrial users. The General
Pretreatment Regulations (part 403)
identify the circumstances when
industrial user noncompliance is
significant. The industrial user
significant noncompliance (SNC)
criteria are set out in 40 G’R
403.8(f)(2)(vii) and address both effluent
and reporting violations. This policy is
consistent with the approach in the
proposed rule. The General
Pretreatment Regulations, however, are
more explicit. In response to public
comments, EPA has changed the
approach in today’s final rule to be
Consistent with Agency enforcement
policy and to remove uncertainty.
For pretreatment purposes. a POT Vs
enforcement program is considered
adequate if no more than 15 percent of
its industrial users meet the SNC criteria
in a single year. A similar level of
industrial user SNC rate will generally
be applicable to POTWs with 301(h)
waivers, but will be subject to facility.
specific conditions. In addition, a
FOlly is also considered in SNC if it
-------
Fvdeial Register! VoL 59 . No. 152 1 Tuesday. August 9. 1994 / Rules and Regulatanns 40S5
‘ails to tahe fornal appropriate and
mely eafascement action against any
industrial user. the wastewater from
which passes through the POTW or
interferes with POTW operations.
In the xntzea ent
prograi . POTWs aie eqiected to
respond to induatiial user
noncompliance using local enforcement
authorities in accordance with an
approved enforcement response plan
(ERP) which is required of all approved
pretreatment programs (see 40 Q R
403 5). POTWs. including 30 1 (h)
POTWs. with greater than 15 percent of
their usarsin S 1 . or which fail to
enforce appropriately against any single
industrial user causing pass through or
interference. a re deemed to be foiling to
enforce their pretzea ord program.
EPA will base Its determination on
data collected during site visits to the
POTW and from the POTW’s
pretreatment program perforTnance
report required by 40 CFR 403.12(i).
These reports include compliance
information on industrial users gathered
by the POTW an wed an a description of
the enfosmawat ivitiea of the TW.
EPA believes that the binatirxi of
industrial user compliance and P01W
°nforcement provides an appropriate
easmemont of the P0TW’s elig bility
.or the 30 14 1i3 wairer under section
3Ol(h l(6).
This interpretation is consistent with
the directives in a Senate Report on an
earher version of the biLl isee S. Rep.
No. 1128. 99th Cong.. 1st Sess. 14
U°85)) as dismissed in the propcsal (58
FR 2817). EPA notes that approval cC the
301(h) waiver, which requires that the
POTW applicant denionsL”ta that its
industr.al users are in corcplutrice with
their applicable pretreatment
requirements, provides a substantial
incentive to the PUTW to assure that its
ndustnal users are in compliance with
:11 applicable pretreatment
requirements. EPA belicves that an
pproacb relying on a det ru .r 4 atiort of
SNC is preferable to focu ...:g on in vial
r r ;soiatod violations, or cther suggested
methods, because it gives clear
4uldeIInes and is consistent t ’ h the
t ntcrcement approach ta the
jre’reatment program.
3ection 125.66:This sei on inc ude
provisions for industrial pritreat.ment
.tiid control of toicic pollutants from
ionindustrial sour . To update
compliance deadlines, the proposal
-viade a minordiarrge in § 125.66 (c)(1 I l
garding deadlines by which applicants
.ere required to develop approved
pretreatment programs. No comments
were recelued on this sect ion and it is
beu:g promulgated as proposed.
Section 125 67.This section discusset
the criteria related to Increased
discharges and implements section
30 1(hR8loftbeCWA. No changes were
pv 9 , d for this section. and no
comnien were received. It remains
unchanged.
Section 225.68:This section sets forth
special permit conditions to be included
in section 3vt(h) modified NPOES
permits. Nod’ianges were proposed For
this s ion. and no comments were
received. 11 remnurs undrenged.
Apq4 ioe quedi000anes: Under the
section 301(h) regulations promulgated
in 1982. there are two application
quP ’nftnaIIes (qu tormaire is defined
in § 125.581. one for use by small
appliceers and one farusaby large
applicants. Tim merged these
into a single questionnaire and added
questions an neces y to respond to the
new reqnitements of the WQA. N.
comments were remivad on the
proposed changes. and they are
promulgated today an proposed.
Other fssnes end Comments
EPA received several terJ nir J ai J
minor m nts on the draft amended
TSD guidance document and s
comments that addressed the
regulations or 3Ollb) program in
general. EPA resprinled to many
comments by making changes to the
TSD as appropriate. The changes are not
discussed here. Below ere responses to
comments for which no change was
mace us the ‘l’SD. and responses to the
general comments.
One commenter suggested that ii is
important that significant flexibility be
provided in making deterrnii ons
regarding the impacts of other sources
on water quality until more definitive
information is available for nonpoint
and other source categories. The
commenter also states that this section
appears tobe in conilict with
§ 12.5.63(b) which limit.s the monitoring
program to or.ly those scientific
investuations necessary to study the
erects.of the proposed discharge. In
response. the reguLations already
addrecs the cumulative impacts of a
discharge as an integral piece of
information necessary to analyze the
balanced indigenous population
requiremeflI. of 301 (h). 1* is not in
c.onlliu with § 125.63(b). The effects of
the proposed discharge are evaluated in
the content of the receiving water
environment, alone and in combination
with other sources of pollutants.
Mother comment recommended that
the guidance document be changed to
requrrethat a date and approval
sequence between the State and EPA
Region be mutually agreed.upon. rather
than requiring compliance with
§ 125-59(0143. which requires State
determitiatinns to be due to the ingions
no later than 90 days after an
application is nibmitted to EPA. lii
response. the TSD simply reflects the
regulatory language. which was not
proposed for change and is not a subject
of this rulemaking.
Another “ “ ter asked that the
guidance better define what is meant by
“signi&ant ecological ithai ga ” This
comment is beyond the scope of this
r, 4 m. king . The approach to delining a
balanced indigenous population (DIP)
was not proposed forchange and EPA
is not considering redefining the DIP.
A corn menter n ested that the
approach to 301 (hi waivers thould be
based on water quality effe and not
on any “equivailancies.’ Another
comatentee su sted that if high BUD
levels are ellowed for andugr -
dischargem under effliaeot guidelines for
certain industries. w*iy do we requue
the 30% removal of BOO and SS (or
municipal efflnents? In response to beth
these comments, the statute does not
provide us leeway on these isanes. The
statute is dear an its 6.ca in requiring
equivaleocy t d’ng arid the remoral of
30% of 800 and SS
One comm -in-.’ zerpiested that strong
consideration be gison to cerztiatizing
the evaluawi ii of waiver requests. White
this ce,11m j bevend the scepe of
this nuIer’ ”g. we recognize the
consistency and e 1cieacy this might
suggest. However. 301 (b) waiver
applications are handled case by case.
based on site-specific rarcumstances.
Although there is national oversight on
the implementation of the program.
regional evaluation provides the ability
to apply regional expertise on regional
and local circumstances surrounding
301(h) applications.
EPA also received requests from
comrnenters for additional time to
comraenL EPA accommodated these
requests and considered all comments
received in developing this float itile
Others requested that EPA notify
industrial users of the proposal. In
response. EPA gave a 60 day ptthlic
comment perioci.which EPA belses’es to
be adequate entice for all affected
pasties.
I II. Supporting Documentatioe
A Regulatory Flecc.bility Act
Under the Regulatory PIe ‘cibility Act
of 198015 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). federal
agencies must, when developing
regulations. consider the impact of the
regulations on small entities 4smal l
businesses, small government
turisdictions. and small organizationsi.
-------
40658 Federal Register / Vol.59 . No.152 I Tuesday, August 9. 1994 I Rules and Regulations
To evaluate whether this rule will have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the
Agency has prepared an Economic
Impact Analysis (EIA). The Agency has
concluded, based on the EIA. that this
rule does not unduly impact on small
communities in terms of overall cost of
compliance. Specifically. none of the
small communities will end up
spending more than 1 percent of median
household income on wastewater
treatment. Moreover, although current
treatment costs may increase, small
communities will still realize an overall
cost savings if less than secondary
treatment is approved through the
section 301(h) process.
There were 51 applicants or
perrnittees in the section 301(h) permit
program at the time of the economic
analysis. Out of these 51 applicants or
permittees. only six are both expected to
incur additional costs due to the
primary or equivalent treatment
requirements and meet the Small
Business Administration (SBA)
definition of a small entity (a service
area with a population of less than
50.000). All those applicants or
permittees subject to and expected to
incur additional costs due to the urban
area pretreatment requirements and one
of the permittees expected to incur
additional costs due to the primary or
equivalent treatment requirements have
service ares populations of greater than
50.000, and thus are not small entities.
On a national level, the total estimated
capital cost of meeting the primary or
equivalent treatment requirements for
the six small entities amounts to less
than $7.2 million, with an associated
operations and maintenance cost of
3465.000 per year. Assuming a 20-year
repayment schedule, the total
annualized cost, for the six small
entities, equals approximately $675,000
a year. After compliance with the
primary or equivalent treatment
requirements. the total annual sewer fee
charged by these ten small entities is
less than 1 percent of the community’s
median household income.
Consequently. none of the small entities
affected by this rule are expected to
incur significant economic impacts.
especially in light of the overall savings
garnered by these communities from not
having to comply with secondary
treatment requiremens.
In summary. I .crtify that this rule
w;ll not have a significant economic
uT. pact on a st b tanti l number of
e .t ities.
B E’cecut,ve Order I 2 66
Under Executive Order 12866. (58
F eral Register 51733 (October 4.
1993)1 the Agency must determine
whether the regulatory action is
“significant” and therefore subject to
0MB review and the requirements of
the Executive Order. The Order defines
“significant regulatory action” as one
that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy. a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety. or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency:
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants. user fees.
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof: or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive order.
It has been determined that this rule
is not a “significant regulatory action”
under the terms of Executive Order
12866 and is therefore not subject to
0MB review.
C Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements of this rule have been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (0MB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
end have been assigned control number
2040—0088.
The estimated average annual burden
hours for the collection of information
is approximately 1,006 hours per POTW
respondent, and 120 hours per State
respondent. Of that, the incremental
burden from these regulatory changes is
approximately 192 hours per small
facility. 256 hours per large facility, and
40 hours per State respondent. These
estimates include the time for reviewing
instructions, for POTWs to collect
information to comply with this final
rule, including conducting monitoring
and to’cics control activities, and
completing and submitting the
app:icant questionnaire, as well as time
for States to prepare the State
determinations and certifications. No
comments were received on the
information ro!lection requirements.
Send comments reg.irding the burden
esc matu or any other asp ct of this
collection ci information, including
suggestior.s for reduc :ng this burden to
Chief. Inforcatinn Policy Branch. EPA.
401 M Street. S.W.. (Mail Code 2136).
W shinqton. D.C. 20463: and to the
Office l Managornent and Budget.
Washington. D.C. 20503, marked
“Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.”
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 125
Environmental protection. Marine
point source discharges. Reporting and
recordkeeping, Waste treatment and
disposal. Water pollution control.
Dated: July 14. 1994
Carol M. Browner.
Admui:strrztor.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble. part 325 of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as set forth below. .Vote ’ For clarity. EPA
has set forth below part 125. subpart G
in its entirety. However, the Agency is
amending only portions of these
regulations in today’s notice. Although
the existing portions of subpart G that
EPA is not amending are also set forth
below, EPA did not reconsider those
portions and they are not subject to
challenge as part of this final
rulemaking.
PART 125—CRITERIA AND
STANDARDS FOR ThE NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for 40 CFR
part 125. subpart G is revised to read as
follows: -
Atithenty: Clean Water Act, as amended by
theClean WaterActof 1977.33 IJ.SC. 1251
et seq., unless otherwise noted.
2. 40 CFR part 125. subpart G is
revised to read as follows:
Subpart G—Crtterla for Modifying the
Secondary Treatment Requirements Under
Section 301 (h) of the Clean Water Act
Sec.
125.56 Scope and purpose.
125.57 Law governing issuance of a section
301(hI modified permiL
125.58 Definitions.
125.59 General.
1 5.6O Prunary or equivalent treatment
requirements.
12561 Existence of and compliance iih
applicable water quality standards.
125 62 Attainment or maintenance of water
quality which assures protection of
public water supplies; assures the
protection and propagation of a
balanced. indigenous population of
shellfish, fish, and wildlife: and
recreational activities.
12563 Establishment of a monhtnrin3
program.
i 5 64 Effect of the discharge on nth,r
point and nonpoint sot.rr.us
U5.65 Urban area pretreatment prngrmn
i :5 (16 Txics control proqram.
12 67 ncrcJse n effl nt olt mc c r
.jgllmIi it of pnllu:.i’.ts u .chargcd
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 152 / Tuesday, August 9. 1994 / Rules and Regulations
40659
125 68 Special conditions for section 301(h)
modified permits.
Appendix to Subpart G—Applicant
Questionnaire for Modification of Secondary
Treatment Requirements
Subpart G—Criteria for Modifying the
Secondary Treatment Requirements
Under SectIon 301(h) of the Clean
Water Act
§ 125.56 Scope and purpose.
This subpart establishes the criteria to
be applied by EPA in acting on section
301(h) requests for modifications to the
secondary treatment requirements. It
also establishes special permit
conditions which must be included in
any permit incorporating a section
301(h) modification of the secondary
treatment requirements (“section 301(h)
modified permit”).
5125.57 Law governing issuance of a
section 301(h) modified permit
(a) Section 30 1(h) of the Clean Water
Act provides that:
Administrator, with the concurrence of the
State. may issue a permit under section 402
which modifies the requirements of
paragraph (bill I(S ) of this section with
respect to the discharge of any pollutant from
a publicly owned treatment works into
marine waters, if the applicant demonstrates
to the satisfaction of the Administrator that—
Ii) There Is an applicable water quality
standard specific to the pollutant for which
the modification Is requested. which has
been identified under section 304(a)(6) of thiS
Act:
(2) The discharge of pollutants In
accordance with such modified requirements
will not interfere, alone or in combination
with pollutants from other sources, with the
attainment or maintenance of that water
quality which assures protection of public
water supplies and protection and
propagation of a balanced indigenous
population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife.
and allows recreational activities. in and on
the water
(3) The applicant has established a system
for monitoring the impact of such discharge
on a representative sample of aquatic blots,
to the extent practicable. and the scope of
such monitoring is limited to Include only
those scientific investigations which are
necessary to study the effects of the proposed
discharge:
(4) Such modified requirements will not
result in any additional requirements on any
other point or nonpoint source:
(5) All applicable pretreatment
requirements for sources introducing waste
ulto such treatment works will be enforced;
(6) In the case of any treatment works
serving a population of 50.000 or more, with
respect to any toxic pollutant Introduced Into
such works by an Industrial discharger for
which pollutant them is no applicable
pretreatment requirement In effect, sources
introducing waste into such works are in
compliance with all applicable pretreatment
requirements. the applicant will enforce such
requirements, and the applicant has in effect
a preneaunent program which, in
combination with the treatment of discharges
from such works, removes the same amount
of such pollutant as would be removed if
such works were to apply secondary
treatment to discharges and if such works
had no pretreatment program with respect to
such pollutant.
(7) To the extent practicable. the applicant
has established a schedule of activities
designed to eliminate the entrance of toxic
pollutants from nonindustrial sources into
such treatment works:
(8) There will be no new or substantially
increased discharges from the point source of
the pollutant to which the modification
applies above that volume of discharge
specified in the permit:
(9) The applicant at the tune such
modification becomes effective will be
discharging effluent which has received at
least primary or equivalent treatment and
which meets the criteria established under
section 304(a)(1) of this Act after initial
mixing in the waters surrounding or adjacent
to the point at which such effluent is
discharged.
For the purposes of this section. the phrase
“the discharge of any pollutant into marine
waters’ refers to a discharge into deep waters
of the territorial sea or the waters of the
contiguous zone, or into saline estuanne
waters where there is strong tidal movement
and other hydrological and geological
characteristics which the Administrator
determines necessary to allow compliance
with paragraph (2) of this section. and
section lolleR 2) of this Act. For the purposes
of paragraph (91. “primary or equivalent
treatment” means treatment by screening.
sedimentation, and skmi”iing adequate to
remove at least 30 percent of the biological
oxygen demanding material and of the
suspended solids in the treatment works
influent. and disinfection, where appropriate.
A municipality which applies secondary
treatment shall be eligible to receive a permit
pursuant to this subsection which modifies
the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(B) of
this section with respect to the discharge of
any pollutant from any treatment works
owned by such municipality into marine
waters. No permit issued under this
subsection shall authorize th. discharge of
sewage sludge into marine waters. En order
for a permit to be issued under this
subsection for the discharge of a pollutant
into marine waters. such marine waters must
exhibit characteristics assuring that water
providing dilution does not contain
significant amounts of previously discharged
effluent from such treatment works. No
permit issued under this subsection shall
authorize the discharge of any pollutant into
saline estuarine waters which at the time of
application do not support a balanced
indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and
wildlife, or allow receation in and on the
waters or which exhibit ambient water
quality below applicable water quality
standards adopted for the protection of
public water supplies, shellfish, fish, end
wildlife or reereational activities or such
other standards necessary to assure support
and protection of such uses. The prohibition
contained in the preceding sentence shall
apply without regard to the presence or
absence of a causal relationship between
such characteristics and the applicant’s
current or proposed discharge.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this
subsection, no permit may be issued under
this subsection for discharge of a pollutant
into the New York Bight Apex consisting of
the ocean waters of the Atlantic Ocean
westward of 73 degrees 30 minutes west
longitude and northward of 40 degrees to
minutes north latitude,
(b) Section 301(jXl) of the Clean
Water Act provides that:
Any application filed under this section for
a modification of the provisions of—
(A) subsection (b)(i)(Bl under subsection
(hi of this section shall be filed not later than
the 365th day which begins after the date of
enactment of the Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Construction Grant Amendments
of 1981. except that a publicly owned
treatment works which prior to December 31.
1962. had a contractual arrangement louse
a portion of the capacity of an ocean outfall
operated by another publicly owned
treatment works which has applied for or
received modification under subsection (hi
may apply for a modification of subsection
(hi in its own right not later than 30 days
after the date of the enactment of the Water
Quality Act of 1987.
(c) Section 22 (e) of the Municipal
Westewater Treatment Construction
Grant Amendments of 1981, Public Law
97—117, provides that:
The aniendnients made by this section
shall take effect on the date of enactment of
this Act except that no applicant, other than
the city of Avalon, California, who applies
after the date of enactment of this Act for a
permit pursuant to subsection (hI of section
301 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act which modifies the requirements of
subsection (b)(l)(B) of section 301 of such
Act shall receive such permit during the one
year period which begins on the date of
enactment of this Act,
(d) Section 303(b)(2) of the Water
Quality Act. Public Law 100-4. provides
that:
Section 30 1(hX3) shall only apply to
modifications and renewals of modifications
which are tentatively or finally approved
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(e) Section 303(g) of the Water Quality
Act provides that:
The amendments made to sections 301(h)
and (hX2), as well as provisions of (hR6) and
(h)(9). shall not apply to an application for
a permit under section 301(h) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act which has been
tentatIvely or finally approved by the
Administrator before the date of the
enactment of this Act except that such
amendments shall apply to all renewals of
such permits after such date of enactment.
§ 125.58 DefinItions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
-------
40660 Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 152 / Tuesday, August 9. 1994 1 Rules and Regulations
(a) Administmtor means the EPA
Administrator or a person designated by
the EPA Administrator.
fb I Altered discharge means any
discharge other than a current discharge
or improved discharge, as defined in
this regulation.
(c) Applicant means an applicant for
a new or renewed section 301(h)
modified permit Large applicants have
populations contributing to their
POTWs equal to or more than 50.000
people or average dry weather flows of
5.0 million gallons per day (mgd) or
more; small applicants have
contributing populations of less than
50.000 people and average dry weather
flows of less than 5.0 mgd. For the
purposes of this definition the
contributing population and flows shall
be based on projections for the end of
the five-year permit term. Average dry
weather flows shall be the average daily
total discharge flows for the ma dnium
month of the dry weather season.
(d) Application means a final
application previously submitted in
accordance with the June 15, 1979,
sectIon 301(h) regulations (44 FR
34784); an application submitted
between December 29. 1981, and
December 29. 1982; or a section 301(h)
renewal application submitted in
accordance with these regulations. It
does not indude a preliminary
application submitted in accordance
with the June 15,1979, section 301(h)
regulations.
1.) Application questionnaire means
EPA’s “Applicant Questionnaire for
Modification of Secondary Treatment
Requirements,” published as an
appendix to this subpart.
(1) Boionced indigenous population
means an ecological community which:
(1) Exhibits characteristics similar to
those of learby, bealthy communities
existing under comparable but
unpolluted environmental conditions:
or
(2) May reasonably be expected to
become re-established In the polluted
water body se nent from adjacent
waters if sources of pollution were
removed.
(g) Categorical pMr atment standard
means a standard promulgated by EPA
under 40 C R Chapter!. Subchapter N.
- (h) Current discharge means the
volume. composition, and location of an
applicant’s discharge at the time of
permit application.
(i) Improved discharge means the
volume. composition, and location of an
applicant’s discharge followinç
(1) Cnnstruction of planned outfall
improvements. including, without
-lianitatiqr . outfall relocation, outfall
repair, or diffuser modification; or-
(2) ConstructIon of planned treatment
system improvements to treatment
levels or discharge characteristics; or
(3) Implementation of a planned
program to improve operation and
maintenance of an existing treatment
system or to eliminate or control the
introduction of pollutants into the
applicant’s treatment works.
(j) fndustrüii discharger or industrial
source means any source of
nondamestic pollutants regulated under
section 307(b) or (c) of the Clean Water
Act which discharges into a POTW.
(k) Modified discharge means the
volume, composition, and location of
the discharge proposed by the applicant
for which a modification under section
301(h) of the Act is requested. A
modified discharge may be a current
discharge, improved discharge, or
altered discharge.
(I) New York Bight Apex means the
ocean waters of the Atlantic Ocean
westward of 73 degrees 30 minutes west
longitude and northward of 40 degrees
10 minutes north latitude.
(mJ Nonindusthai source means any
source of pollutants which Is not an
Industrial source.
(n) Ocean waters means those coastal
waters landward of the baseline of the
territorial seas, the deep waters of the
territorial seas, or the waters of the
contiguous zone. The term “ocean
waters” excludes saline estuarlne
waters.
(o) Permittee means an NPDES
permittee with an effective section
301 (h) modified permit.
(p) Pesticides means demeton.
guthlon. malathion, mirex,
rnethoxychlor. and parathion.
(q) Pretreatment means the redw. ’tlon
of the amount of pollutants, the
elimination of pollutants. or the
alteration of the-nature ofpôllutant - -.
properties in wastewater prior to or In
lieu of discharging or otherwise
introducing such pollutants into a
POTW. The reduction or alteration may
be obtained by physical. chemical, or
biological processes, process changes. or
by other means, except as prohibited by
40 R part 403.
(rI Primary or equivalent treatment for
the purposes of this subpart means
-treatment by screening, sedimentation,
and skimming adequate to remove at
least 30 percent of the biochemical
oxygen demanding material and of the
suspended solids in the treatment works
Influent. and disinfection, where
appropriate.
Cs) Public watersupplies means water
distributed from a public water system.
It) Public water system means a
system for the provision w the public of
- “piped water for human consumption, if
such system has at least fifteen (15)
service connections or regularly serves
at least twenty-five (25) individuals.
This term includes: (1) Any collection.
treatment. storage, and distribution
facilities under the control of the
operator of the system and used
primarily in connection with the
system. and (2) Any collection or
pretreatment storage facilities not under
the control of the operator of the system
which are used primarily in connection
with the system.
(ul Publicly owned treatment works or
POTW means a treatment works, as
defined in sectIon 212(2) of the Act,
which is owned by a State,
municipality, or intennunicipal or
interstate agency.
(v) Saline estuarine waters means
those semi-enclosed coastal waters
which have a free connection to the
territorial sea, undergo net seaward
exchange with ocean waters, and babe
salinities comparable to those of the
ocean. Generally. these waters are near
the mouth of estuaries and have aoss-
sectional annual mean salinities greater
than twenty.five (25) parts per
thousand.
(w) Secondary removal equivalency
means that the amount of a toxic
pollutant removed by the combination
of the applIcant’s own treatment of its
Influent and pretreatment by its
Industrial users Is equal to or greater
than the amount of the toxic pollutant
that would be removed if the applicant
were to apply secondary treatment to Its
discharge where the discharge has not
undergone pretreatment by the
applicant’s industrial users.
(x) Secondary treatment means the
term as defined In 40 17R part 133.
(y) Shellfish, fish, and wildlife means
any biological population or community
that might be adversely affected by the
applicant’s modified discharge.
(z) Stressed waters means those ocean
waters for which an applicant can
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Administrator, that the absence of a
balanced Indigenous population is
-caused solely by human perturbations
other than the applicant’s modified
discharge.
(as) Toxic pollutants means those
substances listed In 40 CFR 401.15.
(bb) Water quality criteria means
scientific data and guidance developed
and periodically updated by EPA under
section 304(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act.
which are applicable to marine waters.
(cc) Water quality standards means
app llcabW water quality standards
which have been approved, left In
effect, or promulgated under section 303
of the Clean Water Act.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 152 / Tuesday. August 9. 1994 / Rules and Regulations
40661
(dd) Zone of initial dilution (Z l
means the region of initial mixing
surrounding or adjacent to the end of
the outfall pipe or diffuser ports.
provided that the ZU) may not be larger
than allowed by mixing zone
restrictions in applicable water quality
standards.
§ 125.59 General.
(a) Basis for application. An
application under this subpart shall be
based on a current, improved, or altered
discharge into ocean waters or saline
estuarine waters.
(b) Prohibitions. No section 301(hl
modified permit shall be issued:
(1) Where such issuance would not
assure compliance with eli applicable
requirements of this subpart and part
122.
(2) For the discharge of sewage
sludge;
(3) Where such issuance would
conflict with applicable provisions of
State. local, or other Federal laws or
Executive Orders. This includes
compliance with the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972. as amended.
15 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.; the Endangered
Species Act of 1973. as amended. 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; and Title Ifl of the
Marine Protection. Research and
Sanctuaries Act, as amended. 16 U.S.C.
1431 etseq.:
(4) Where the discharge of any
pollutant enters into saline estuarine
waters which at the time of application
do not support a balanced indigenous
population of shellfish, fish, and
wildlife, or allow recreation in and on
the waters or which exhibit ambient
water quality below applicable water
quality standards adopted for the
protection of public water supplies.
shellfish, fish, and wildlife or
recreational activities or such other
standards necessary to assure support
and protection of such uses. The
prohibition contained in the preceding
sentence shall apply without regard to
the presence or absence of a causal
relationship between such
characteristics and the applicant’s
current or proposed discharge: or
(5) Where the discharge of any
pollutant is into the New York Bight
Apex.
(c) Applications. Each applicant for a
modified permit under this subpart
shall submit an application to EPA
signed in compliance with 40 R part
122. subpart B, which shall contain:
(1) A signed. completed NPDES
Application Standard form A, parts 1.11.
UI;
(2) A completed Application
Questionnaire:
(3) The certification in accordance
with 40 CFR 122.22(d);
(4) In addition to the requirements of
§ 125.59(c) (1) through (3). applicants
for permit renewal shall support
continuation of the modification by
supplying to EPA the results of studies
and monitoring performed in
accordance with § 125.63 during the life
of the permit. Upon a demonstration
meeting the statutory criteria and
requirements of this subpart. the permit
may be renewed under the applicable
procedures of 40 CFR part 124.
(dl Revisions to applications. (1)
POTWs which submitted applications
in accordance with the June 15. 1979,
regulations (14 FR 34784) may revise
their applications one time following a
tentative decision to propose changes to
treatment levels and/or outfall and
diffuser location and design in
accordance with § 125.59(0(21(i): and
(2) Other applicants may revise their
applications one time following a
tentative decision to propose changes to
treatment levels and/or outfall and
diffuser location and design in
accordance with § 125. 59( 1 1(2 1(i).
Revisions by such applicants which
propose downgrading tisatnient levels
and/or outfall and diffuser location and
design must be justified on the basis of
substantial changes in circumstances
beyond the applicant’s control since the
time of application submission.
(3) Applicants authorized or
requested to submit additional
information under § 125.59(g) may
submit a revised application in
accordance with 5 125.59(fl(2flii) where
such additional information supports
changes in proposed treatment levels
and/or outfall location and diffuser
design. The opportunity for such
revision shall be in addition to the one-
time revision allowed under § 125.59(d)
(1) and (2).
(4) POTWs which revise their
applications must:
Ii) Modify their NPDES form and
Application Questionnaire as needed to
ensure that the information filed with
their application is correct and
complete;
(ii) Provide additional analysis and
data as needed to demonstrate
compliance with this subpart;
(iii) Obtain new State determinations
under §5 125.6flb)(2) and 125.64(b): and
(iv) Provide the certification described
in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(5) Applications for permit renewal
may not be revised.
(e) Submittal of additionoi
Information to demonstrate compliance
with ,ff 125.60 and 125.65. (1) On or
before the deadline established in
paragraph (Q(3) of this section,
applicants shall submit a letter of intent
to demonstrate compliance with
§5125.60 and 125.65. The letter of
intent is subject to approval by the
Administrator based on the
requirements of this paragraph and
paragraph (0(3) of this section. The
letter of intent shall consist of the
following:
(i) For compliance with 5 125.60: (A)
A description of the proposed treatment
system which upgrades treatment to
satisfy the requirements of 5 125.60.
(B) A project plan. including a
schedule for data collection and for
achieving compliance with § 125.60.
The project plan shall include dates for
design and construction of necessary
facilities, submittal of influent/effluent
data, and submittal of any other
information necessary to demonstrate
compliance with § 125.60. The
Administrator will review the project
plan and may require revisions prior to
authorizing submission of the additional
information.
(ii) For compliance with § 125.65: (A)
A determination of what approach will
be used to achieve compliance with
5125.65.
(B) A project plan for achieving
compliance. The project plan shall
include any necessary data collection
activities, submittal of additional
information, and/or development of
appropriate pretreatment limits to
demonstrate compliance with § 125.65.
The Administrator will review the
project plan and may requi.e revisions
prior to submission of the additional
information.
(iii) POTWs which submit additional
information must:
(A) Modify their NPDES form and
Application Questionnaire as needed to
ensure that the information filed with
their application is correct and
complete:
(B) Obtain new State determinations
under §5 125.61(b)(2) and 125.64(b): and
(C) Provide the certification described
in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(2) The information required under
this paragraph must be submitted in
accordance with the schedules in
§ 125.59(f)(3)(ii). If the applicant does
not meet these schedules for
compliance, EPA may deny the
application on that basis.
(1) Deadlines and distribution—(1)
Applications.—(i) The application for
an original 301(h) permit for POTWs
which directly discharges effluent into
saline waters shall be submitted to the
appropriate EPA Regional Administrator
no later than December 29. 1982.
(ii) The application for renewal of a
301(h) modified permit shall be
submitted no less than 180 days prior to
-------
40662 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 9, 1994 I Rules and Regulations
the expiration of the isting permit.
unless permission fore later date has
been granted by the Administrator. (The
Administrator shall not grant
permission for applications to be
submitted later than the expiration date
of the e dstIng permit)
(iii) A copy of the application shall be
provided to the State and interstate
agency(s) authorized to provide
certification/concurrence under
§512453 through 124.55 on or before
the date the application is submitted to
EPA.
(2) Revisions to Applications (1)
Applicants desiring to revise their
applications under § 125.59 (d)(i) or
(dfl2) must:
(A) Submit to the appropriate
Regional Administrator a letter of intent
in revise their application either within
45 days of the date of EPA’s tentative
decision on their original application or
within 45 days of November 26. 1982.
whichever is later. Following receipt by
EPA oIa letter of intent, further EPA
proceedings on the tentative decision
under 40 R part 124 Will be stayed.
(B) Submit the revised application as
described for new applications in
§ 125.59(0(1) either within one sear of
the date of EPA ’s tentative decision on
their original application or within one
year of November 26. 1982. if a tentative
decision has already been made.
whichever is later.
(ii) Applicants desiring to revise their
applications under § 125.59 1d)(3) must
submit the revised application as
described for new applications in
§ 125.59 (Q(1) concurrent with
submission of the additional.
information under § 125.59(g).
(3) Deadline for additional
information to demonstrate compliance
with §5125.60 and 125.65.
(i) A letter of intent required under
§ 125.39(eJU) must be submitted by the
following dates: for permiltees with
301 (h) modifications or for applicants to
which a tentative or final decision has
been issued. November 7, 1994: for all
others, within 90 days after the
Administrator issues a tentative
decision on an application. Following
receipt by EPA of a letter of intent
containing the information required in
§ 125.59(e)(1). further EPA proceedings
on the tentative decision under 40 CFR
part 124 will be stayed.
(ii) The project plan submitted under
§ 125.59 (e)(1) shall ensure that the
applicant meets all the requirements of
§5125.60 and 125.65 by the following
deadlines:
(A) By August 9. 1996 for applicants
that are not grandlathered under
§ 125.59(j).
(B) At the time of permit z newal or
by August 9. 1996. whichever is later.
for applicants that are grandfathered
under § 125.59(j).
(4) State determination deadline.
State determinations, as required by
§5 123.81(b)(2) and 123.64(b) shall be
filed by the applicant with the
appropriate Regional Administrator no
later than 90 days after submission of
the revision to the application or
additional information to EPA.
Extensions to this deadline may he
provided by EPA upon request.
However, EPA will not begin review of
the revision to the application or
additional information until a favorable
Slate determination is received by EPA.
Failure to provide the State
determination within the timefraxne
required by this paragraph (fl(4) is a
basis for denial of the application.
(gRI) The Administrator may
authorize or request an applicant to
submit additional information by a
specified dale not to exceed one year
from the date of authorization or
request.
(2) Applicants seeking authorization
to submit additional information on
currentlmodifled discharge
characteristics, water quality, biological
conditions or oceanographic
characteristics must:
(i) Demonstrate that they made a
diligent effort to provide such
information with their application and
were unable to do so. and
(ii) Submit a plan of study. including
a schedule, for data collection and
submittal of the additional information.
EPA Will review the plan of study and
may require revisions prior to
authorizing submission of the addiuonal
information.
(hI Tentative decisions on section
301(h) modifications. The Administrator
shall grant a tentative approval or a
tentative denial of a section 301(h)
modified permit application. To qualify
for a tentative approval, the applicant
shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Administrator that it is using good
faith means to come into compliance
with all the requirements of this subpart
and that it will meet all such
requirements based on a schedule
approved by the Administrator. For
compliance with §5125.60 and 125.65.
such schedule shall be in accordance
with § 125.59(fl (3)(ii).
(i) Decisions on section 301(h)
modifications. (1) The decision to grant
or deny a section 301(h) modification
shall be made by the Administrator and
shall be based on the applicant’s
demonstration that it has met all the
requirements of §5 125.59 through
125.68.
(2) No section 301 (h) modified permit
shall be issued until the appropriate
State certlflcationiconcurrence is
granted or waived pursuant to § 124.54
or If the State denies certiflcationl
concurrence pursuant to § 124.54.
(3) In the case of a modification
Issued to an applicant in a State
administering an approved permit
program under 40 CFR part 123. the
State Director may:
(i) Revoke an existing permit as of the
effective date of the EPA issued section
301(h) modified permit: and
(ii) Cosign the section 301(h) modified
permit if the Director has indicated an
intent to do so in the written
concurrence.
(4) Any section 301(h) modified
permit shall:
(i) Be issued in accordance with the
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 124.
except that, because section 301(h)
permits may be issued only by EPA. the
terms “Administrator or a person
designated by the Administrator” shall
be substituted for the term “Director” as
appropriate: and
(ii) Contain all applicable terms and
conditions set forth in 40 FR part 122
and § 125.68.
(51 Appeals of section 301(h)
determinations shall be governed by thi’
procedures in 40 CFR part 124.
(j) Grandfathering provision.
Applicants that received tentative or
final approval for a section 301(h)
modified permit prior to February 4.
1987, are not subject to § 125.60, the
water quality criteria provisions of
§ 125.6 (a)(l) or § 125.65 until the time
of permit renewal. In addition, if permit
renewal will occur prior to August 9.
1996. applicants may have additional
time to come into compliance with
§5125.60 and 125.65. as determined
appropriate by EPA on a case-by.case
basis. Such additional time, however.
shall not extend beyond August 9. 1996
This paragraph does not apply to any
application that was initially tentatively
approved, but as to which EPA
withdrew its tentative approval or
issued a tentative denial prior to
February 4. 1987.
§ 125.60 PrImary or equivalent treatment
requirements.
(a) The applicant shall demonstrate
that, at the time its modification
becomes effective, it will be dischar ing
effluent that has received at least
primary or equivalent treatment.
(b) The applicant shall perform
monitoring to ensure, based on the
monthly average results of the
monitoring, that the effluent it
discharges has received primary or
equivalent treatment.
-------
Federal Register I VoL 59. No. 152 I Tuesday. August 9. 1994 / Rules and Regulations 40663
(cK1LAn applicant may request that
the demonstration of compliance with
the requirement under § 125.60(b) to
provide 30 percent removal of BOD be
allowed on an averaging basis different
from monthly (e.g.. quarterly). subiect to
the demonstrations pro ded in
paragraph (d112) of this section. If.
however, the applicant has
demonstrated an ability to achieve 30
percent removal of BOD on a monthly
average basis over the calendar year
prior to August 9, 1994. the applicant
shall not be eligible for an averaging
basis longer than monthly.
(2) If the Administrator is satisfied
that the applicant has met the eligibilit)
requirement of paragraph (c)(1) of this
section. the Administrator may approve
such requests if the applicant
demonstrates to the Administrator’s
satisfaction that:
(‘I The applicant’s P01W is
adequately designed and well operated.
(ii) The applicant will be able to meet
all requtrements under section 30 1(h) of
the CWA and these subpart C
regulations with the averaging basis
selected, and
(iii) The applicant cannot achieve 30
percent removal on a monthly average
basis because of circumstances beyond
the applicant’s control. Circumstances
be road the app licent’s control may
nclud seasonally dilute influent SOD
concentrations due to relatively high
(although aonexcessive) inflow and
inFiiu ’auon: relatively high soluble to
insoluble BOD ratios on a fluctuating
basis, or coLd climates resulting in cold
infiue t. Circumstances beyond the
app1 cant s control shall not include less
concer.trated wastewater due to
e cessive inflow and infiltration (I8 I)
The determination of whether the less
concentrated wastewater is the result of
e cessive 1&I will be based on the
definition of excessive ILl in 40 CFR
35 2005(bKt6) plus the additional
criterion that inflow is nonexcessive if
the total (low to the P01W (i.e..
astewater plus inflow plus infiltration)
is less t an 275 gallons per capita per
day
(3) La no event shall averaging on a
less frequent basis than annually be
allowed.
§ 125.61 ExIstence of and compliance with
saoi’cabi. water quality stanGar s.
(a) There must exist a water quality
‘andard or standards applicable to the
pollutant(s) for which a section 30 1(h)
modified permit Is requested. including’
(1) Water quality’ standards for
‘ochemical oxygen demand or
csolved oxygen:
12 ) Water quality standards for
s ..dpeaded solids. turbidity, light
transmission, light scattering, or
maintenance of the euphotic zone: and
(3) Water quality standards for pH.
(b)The applicant must: (1)
Demonstrate that the modified discharge
will comply with the above water
quality standard(s); and
(2) Provide a determination signed by
the State or interstate agency(s)
authorized to provide certification
under § 124.53 and 124.54 that the
proposed modified discharge will
comply with applicable provisions of
State law including water quality
standards. This determination shall
include a discussion of the basis for the
conclusion reached.
§ 125.62 Attainment or maintenance of
water quality which assures protectIon of
public water supplies; assures the
protection and propagation of a balanced
indigenous population of shellfIsh. flail, and
wildlife; and allows recreational activities.
(a) Physical chorocienstscs of
discharge. (1) At the time the 30 1(h)
modification becomes effective, the
applicant’s outfall and diffuser must be
located and designed to provide
adequate initial dilution, dispersion.
and transport of wastewater such that
the discharge does not exceed at and
beyond the zone of initial dilution:
(i) All applicable water quality
standards; and
(ii) All applicable C PA water quality
aiteria for pollutants for which there is
no applicable CPA-approved water
quality standard that directly
corresponds to the EPA water qualit
cnterion for the pollutant.
(iii) For purposes of paragraph
(a)(l)(ii) of this section. a State water
quality standard “directly corresponds’
to an CPA water quality criterion only
(Al The State water quality standard
addresses the same pollutar.t as the EPA
water quality criterion and
(B) The Stare water quality standard
specifies a numeric critenon for that
pollutant or State objective methodo log)
for deriving such a numeric criterion
(iii The evaluation of compliance
with paragraphs(a)(1) (ii and (ii) of this
section shall be based upon conditions
reflecting periods of maximum
stratification and during other periods
when discharge characteristics, water
quality. biological seasons. or
oceanographic conditions indicate more
critical situations may exist.
(2) The evaluation under paragraph
(a)( 1 1(u) of this section as to compliance
with applicable section 304(a)(l) water
quality criteria shall be based on the
following:
(ii For oqua :: life criteria: The
pollutant concentrations that must not
be exceeded are the numeric ambient
values, if any. specified in the EPA
section 304(a)(1l water quality criteria
documents as the concentrations at
which acute and chronic toxicity to
aquatic life occurs or that are otherwise
identified as the criteria to protect
aquatic life.
(ii) For human health criteria for
carcinogens: (A) For a known or
suspected carcinogen, the Administrator
shall determine the pollutant
concentration that shall not be
exceeded. To make this determination.
the Administrator shall first determine a
level of risk associated with the
pollutant that is acceptable for purposes
of this section. The Administrator shall
then use the information in the section
304(a)(1) water quality criterion
document, supplemented by all other
relevant information, to determine the
specific pollutant concentration that
corresponds to the identified risk level
(B) For purposes of paragraph
(a)(2)(ui)(A) of this section. an acceptable
risk level will be a single level that has
been consistently used. as determined
by the Administrator, as the basis of the
States EPA.approved water quality
standards for carcinogenic pollutants.
Alternatively, the Administrator may
consider a State’s recommendation to
use a risk level that has been otherwise
adopted or formally proposed by the
State. The State recommendation must
demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the
Administrator, that the recommended
le ’el us sufficiently protective of human
health in light of the e’cposure and
uncertainty factors associated with the
esiu mate of the actual risk posed b the
applicant’s discharge. The State must
include t ’sth its demonstration a
showing that the risk level selected is
based on the best information available
and that the State has held a public
hearing to review the selection of the
risk level, in accordance with provisions
of State law and public participation
requirements of 40 CFR part 25. If the
Administrator neither determines that
there is a consistentLy used single risk
level nor accepts a risk level
recommended by the State. then the
Administrator shall otherwise
determine an acceptable risk level based
on all relevant information.
(iii) For human health criteria for
noncorc:ncgens. For noncarcinogern
pollutants, the pollutant concentratuon
that must not be exceeded are the
numeric ambient values, if any.
specified in the EPA section 304(a)(1)
water quality criteria documents as
protective against the potential toxicit
of the contaminant through ingestion oi
contaminated aquatic organisms.
-------
40664 Federal Register I Vol. 59 . o.152 / Tuesday. August 9. 1994 / Rules and Regulations
(3) The requirements of paragraphs
(a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section apply tn
addition to. and do not waive or
substitute for, the requirements of
§ 125.61.
(b) Impact of discharge on public
water supplies. (1) The applicant’s
modified discharge must allow for the
attainment or maintenance of water
quality which assures protection of
public water supplies.
(21 The applicant s modified
discharge must not:
(i) Prevent a planned or existing
public water supply from being used. or
from continuing to be used, as a public
water supply: or
(ii) Have the effect of requiring
treatment over and above that which
would be necessary in the absence of
such discharge in order to comply with
local and EPA drinking water standards.
(c) Biological impact of discharge. (1)
The applicant’s modified discharge
must allow for the attainment or
maintenance of water quality which
assures protection and propagation of a
balanced indigenous population of
shellfish, fish, and wildlife.
(2) A balanced indigenous population
of shellfish. fish, and wildlife must
exist:
U) Immediately beyond the zone of
initial dilution of the applicant’s
modified discharge; and
(ii) In all other areas beyond the zone
of initial dilution where marine life is
actually or potentially affected by the
applicant’s modified discharge.
(3) Conditions within the zone of
initial dilution must not contribute to
extreme adverse biological impacts,
including, but not limited to, the
destruction of distinctive habitats of
limited distribution, the presence of
disease epicenter, or the stimulation of
phytoplankton blooms which have
adverse effects beyond the zone of
initial dilution.
(4) In addition, for modified
discharges into saline estuarine wateri
Ii) Benthic populations within the
zone of initial dilution must not differ
substantially from the balanced
indigenous populations which exist
immediately beyond the boundary of
the zone of initial dilution:
(ii) The discharge must riot interfere
with estuarine migratory pathways
within the zone of initial dilution: and
(iii) The discharge must not result in
the accumulation of toxic pollutants or
pesticides at levels which exert adverse
effects on the biota within the zone of
initial dilution.
(d) Impact of discharge an
recreationoi activities. (1) The
applicant’s modified discharge must
allow for the attainment or maintenance
of water quality which allows for
recreational activities beyond the zone
of initial dilution, including, without
limitation, swimming, diving, boating,
fishing, and picnicking, and sports
activities along shorelines and beaches.
(2) There must be no Federal. State. or
local restrictions on recreational
activities within the vicinity of the
applicant’s modified outfail unless such
restrictions are routinely imposed
around sewage outfalls. This exception
shall not apply where the restriction
would be lifted or modified. in whole or
in part. if the applicant were
discharging a secondary treatment
effluent.
(e) Additional requirements for
applications based on improved or
altered discharges. An appiication for a
section 301(h) modified permit on the
basis of an improved or altered
discharge must include:
(1) A demonstration that such
improvements or alterations ha e been
thoroughly planned and studied and
can be comp!eted or implemented
expeditiously;
(2) Detailed analyses projecting
changes in average and maximum
monthly flow rates and composi:ion of
the applicant’s discharge hich are
expected to result from proposed
improvements or alterations:
(3) The assessments required by
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section
based on its current discharge: and
(4) A detailed analysis of how the
applicant’s planned improvements or
alterations will comply with the
requirements of paragraphs (a) through
(d) of this section.
(I) Stressed waters. An applicant must
demonstrate compliance t%Ith
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section
not only on the basis of the applicant’s
own modified discharge. but also taking
into account the applicant s modified
discharge in combination %lth
pollutants from other sources. Howe er,
if an applicant which discharges into
ocean waters belies es that its failure to
meet the requirements of pa. graphs (a)
through (a) of this section is entirely
attributable to conditions resulting from
human perturbations other than its
modified discharge (including, without
limitation, other municipal or indusinal
discharges, nonpoint source runoff. and
the applicant’s previous discharges). the
applicant need not demonstrate
compliance with those requirements if it
demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the
Administrator, that its modified
discharge does not or will riot:
(1) Contribute to, increase, or
perpetuate such stressed conditions.
(2) Contribute to further degradation
of the biota or water qualit :1 the le%el
of human perturbation from other
sources increases: and
(3) Retard the recovery of the biota o’
water quality if the level of human
perturbation from other sources
decreases.
§125.63 EstablIshment of a morntonng
program.
(a) General requirements (1) The
applicant must:
(i) Have a monitoring program that s
(A) Designed to provide data to
e aluate the impact of the modified
discharge on the marine biota.
demonstrate compliance with
applicable water quality standards or
water quality criteria, as applicable, and
measure toxic substances in the
discharge. and
(B) Limited to include only those
scientific investigations necessary to
study the effects of the proposed
discharge;
(ii) Describe the sampling techniques.
schedules and locations (including
appropriate control site ), analytical
techniques, quality control and
verification procedures to be used in the
monitoring program:
(iii) Demonstrate that it has the
resources necessary to implement the
program upon issuance of the modi ed
permit and to carry it out for the life of
the modified permit; and
(iv) Determine the frequency and
extent of the monitoring program tal ing
into consideration the applicant s rate of
discharge. quantities of toxic pollutants
discharged, and potentially significant
impacts on receiving water qualit..
marine biota, and designated water uses
(2) The Administrator may require
revision of the proposed monitoring
program before issuing a modified
permit and during the term of an
modified permit.
(b) Biological monitoring progrorn
The biological monitoring program for
both small and large applicants shall
provide data adequate to evalua:e the
impact of the modified discharge on the
marine biota.
(1) Biological monitoring shall
include to the extent practicable:
(i) Periodic surveys of the biolog.cal
communities and populations tt hich ar
most likely affected by the discharge to
enable comparisons with baseline
conditions described in the application
and verified by sampling at the control
stations/reference sites during the
periodic surve s,
(ii) Periodic determinations of J:
accumulation of toxic pollutants aria
pesticides in organisms and
examination of adverse effects. such as
disease. growth abnormalities.
phyttological stress. or death:
-------
Federai Register F Vol. 59, No. 152 / Tuesday . August 9. 1994 / Rules and Regulations 40665
(iii) Sampling of sediments in areas of
;olids deposition in the vicinity of the
ZID. in other areas of expected impact.
and at appropriate reference sites to
support the water quality and biological
surveys and to measure the
iccumulation of toxic pollutants and
pesticides: and
(iv) Where the discharge would affect
commercial or recreational fisheries.
periodic assessments of the conditions
and productivity of fisheries.
(2) Small applicants are not subiect to
the requirements of paragraph (bill) (ii)
through (iv) of this section if they
discharge at depths greater than 10
meters and can demonstrate through a
suspended solids deposition analysis
that there will be negligible seabed
accumulation in the vicinity of the
modified discharge.
(3) For applicants seeking a section
301(h) modified permit based on:
(i) A current discharge. biological
monitoring shall be designed to
demonstrate ongoing compliance with
the requirements of § 125.62(c):
(ii) An improved discharge or altered
discharge other than outfall relocation.
biological monitoring shall provide
baseline data on the current impact of
the discharge and data which
demonstrate, upon completion of
improvements or alterations, that the
aqurrements of § 125.62(c) aremet: or
liii) An improved or altered discharge
involving outfall relocation, the
biological monitoring shall:
(A) lr.clude the currt iit discharge site
until such discharge ceases; and
(B) Provide baseline data at the
ocation site to demonstrate the
.mpzct of the discharge and to provide
the basis for demonstrating that
i’equtrements of § 125.62(c) will be met.
(ci Ii’ater quality monitoring program
‘he water quality monitoring program
;“iall to the extent practicable:
(1) Provide adequate data for
.aluating compliance with water
ualitv standards or water quality
:?i e’ia. as applicable under
125.62(aill);
(21 Measure the presence of toxic
oollutants which have been identified
reasonably may be erpected to be’
resent in the discharge.
(d) Effluent monitoring program. (1)
addition to the requirements of 40
‘FR part 122. to the extent practicable.
rlor.itoring of the PO’flV effluent shall
, ovide quantitative and qualitative
‘ata which measure toxic substances
md pesticides in the effluent and the
tfectiveness of the toxic control
•ografrL
2) The permit shall require the
aiection of data on a frequency
. . c ’i fled in the permit to provide
adequate data for evaluating compliance
with the percent removal efficiency
requir8ments under § 125.60.
§ 125.64 Effect of the discharge on other
point an nonpoint sources,
(a) No modified discharge ma result
in any additional pollution control
reqt irements on any other point or
nonpoint source.
(b)The applicant shall obtain a
determination from the State or
interstate agency(s) having authority to
establish wasteload allocations
indicating whether the applicants
discharge will result in an additional
treatment pollution control, or other
requirement on any other point or
nonpoint sources. The State
determination shall include a
discussion of the basis for its
conclusion.
§ 125.65 Wean area pretreatment program.
(a) Scope and applicability. (1) The
requirements of this section apply to
each POTW serving a population of
50.000 or more that has one or more
to dc pollutants introduced into the
POTW by one or more industrial
dischargers and that seeks a section
301(h) modification.
(2) The requirements of this section
apply in addition to any applicable
requirements of 40 CFR part 403. and do
not waive or substitute for the part 403
requirements in any way.
(b)Toxic pollutant control. (1) As to
each toxic pollutant introduced by an
industrial discharger. each POTW
subiect to the requirements of this
section shall demonstrate thai it either:
(i) Has an applicable pretreatment
requirement in effect in accordance with
paragraph (C) of this section: or
(ii) Has in effect a program that
chieves secondary removal
equivalency in accordance with
paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) Each applicant shall demonstrate
that industrial sources introducing
waste into the applicant’s treatment
works axe in compliance with all
applicable pretreatment requirements.
including numerical standards set by
local limits, and that it %il1 enforce
those requirements.
(c) Applicable pretreatment
requirement (1) An applicable
pretreatment requirement under
paragraph (bil liii) of this section with
respect to a toxic pollutant shal! consist
of the following:
(ii As to a toxic pollutant introduced
into the applicant’s treatment works by
an industrial discharger for vi’hich there
as no applicable categorical pretreatment
standard for the toxic pollutant, a local
limit or limits on the toxic pollutant as
necessary to satisfy the requirements of
40 CFR part 403. and
(ii) As to a toxic pollutant introduced
into the applicants treatment works b
an industrial discharger that is subject
to a categorical pretreatment standard
for the toxic pollutant. the categorical
standard and a local Limit or limits as
necessar to satisfy the requirPmerits of
40 CFR part 403;
(iii) Arto a toxic pollutant introduced
into the applicant’s treatment works by
an industrial discharger for which there
is no applicable categorical pretreatment
standard for the toxic pollutant. and the
40 CFR part 403 analysis on the toxic
pollutant shows that no local limit is
necessary, the applicant shall
demonstrate to EPA on an annual basis
during the term of the permit through
continued monitoring and appropriate
technical renew that a local limit is not
necessary, and, where appropriai. ,
require industrial management practices
plans and other pollution pretention
activities to reduce or control the
discharge of each such pollutant by
industrial daschergers to the POTW If
such monitoring and technical review of
data indicate that a local limit is
needed, the POT)V shall establish and
implement a local limit.
(2) Any local limits developed to meet
the requirements of paragraphs (b)(l)(i)
and (dli) of this section shall be:
(i) Consistent with all applicable
requirements of 40 CFR part 403 and
(ii) Subiect to approval by the
Administrator as part of the 301(h)
application review. The Administrator
may require such local limits to be
re ised as necessan to meet the
requirements of this section or 40 CFR
part 403,
(dl Secondozv removal equat’olencv
An applicant shall demonstrate that it
achieves secondary removal
equi .alencv through the use of a
secondary treatment pilot
(demonstration) plant at the applicants
faciiity t hich provides an empirical
determination of the amount of a tonic
pollutant removed by the application of
seconda treatment to the applicant’s
influent where the applicants influent
has not been pretreated. Alternatively.
an applicant may make this
deterrn:naiion using influent that has
recei’.ed industrial pretreatment.
notwithstanding the definition of
secondary removal equivalency in
§ 125.58(w), The NPDES permit shall
include effluent limits based on the data
from the secondary equivalency
demonstration when those limits are
more stringent than effluent limits based
on State water quality standards or
water quality criteria, if applicable, or
are otherwise required to assure that all
-------
40666 Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 152 I Tuesday. August 9. 1994 / Rules and Regulations
applicable environmental protection
criteria are met. Once such effluent
limits are established in the NPDES
permit. the POTW may either establish
local limits or perform additional
treatment at the P01W or a combination
of the two to achieve the permit limit.
§ 125.66 Texlcs con Vol pro um .
(a) Chemical analysis. (1) The
applicant shall submit at the time of
application a chemical analysis of its
current discharge for all toxic pollutants
and pesticides as defined in § 125.58(aa)
and (p). The analysis shall be performed
on two 24-hour composite samples (one
dry weather and one wet weather).
Applicants may supplement or
substitute chemical analyses if
composition of the supplemental or
substitute samples typifies that which
occurs during dry and wet weather
conditions.
(2) Unless required by the State. this
requirement shall not apply to any small
section 301(h) applicant which certifies
that there are no known or suspected
sources of toxic pollutants or pesticides
and documents the certification with an
industrial user survey as described by
40 TR 403.8(0(2).
(b) Identification of so’utces. The
applicant shall submit at the time of
application an analysis of the known or
suspected sources of toxic pollutants or
pesticides identified in § 125.66(a). The
applicant shall to the extent practicable
categorize the sources according to
industrial and nonindustrial types.
(C) Industrial pretreatment
requirements. (1) An applicant that has
known or s’ispected industrial sources
of toxic pollutants shall have an
approved pretreatment program in
accordance with 40 CFR part 403.
(2) This requirement shall not apply
to any applicant which has no known or
suspected industrial sources of toxic
pollutants or pesticides and so certifies
to the Administrator.
(3) The pretreatment program
submitted by the applicant under this
section shall be subject to revision as
required by the Administrator prior to
issuing or renewing any section 301(h)
modified permit and during the term of
any such permit.
(4) Imp [ ementation of all existing
pretreatment requirements and
authorities must be maintained through
the period of development of any
additional pretreatment requirements
that may be necessary to comply with
the requirements of this subpart.
(d) Nonindustrial source control
program. (1) The applicant shall submit
a proposed public education program
designed to minimize the entrance of
nonindustrial toxic pollutants and
pesticides into its POTW(s) which shall
be implemented no later than 18 months
after issuance of a 301(h) modified
permit.
(2) Th. applicant shall also develop
and implement additional nonindustrial
source control programs on the earliest
possible schedule. This requirement
shall not apply to a small applicant
which certifies that there are no known
or suspected water quality, sediment
accumulation, or biological problems
related to toxic pollutants or pesticides
in its discharge.
(3) The applicant’s nonindustzial
source control programs under
paragraph (d)(2) of this section shall
include the following schedules which
are to be implemented no later than 18
months after issuance of a section
301(h) modified permit:
(i) A schedule of activities for
identifying nonindustnal sources of
toxic pollutants and pesticides: and
(ii) A schedule for the development
and implementation of control
programs. to the extent practicable, for
nonindustrial sources of toxic pollutants
and pesticides.
(4) Each proposed nonindustrial
source control program andlor schedule
submitted by the applicant under this
section shall be subject to revision as
determined by the Administrator prior
to issuing or renewing any section
301(h) modified permit and during the
term of any such permit.
5125.67 Increase In effluent voiwne or
entount of pollutants discharged,
(a) No modified discharge may result
in any new or substantially increased
discharges of the pollutant to which the
modification applies above the
discharge specified in the section 301(h)
modlfie4 permit.
(b) Where pollutant discharges aie
attributable in part to combined sewer
overflows, the applicant shall minimize
existing overflows and prevent increases
in the amount of pollutants discharged.
(c) The applicant shall provide
projections of effluent volume and mass
loadings for any pollutants to which the
modification applies in 5-year
increments for the design life of its
facility.
§ 125.68 SpecIal conditions for scc on
301(h) maCtiled permits.
Each section 301(h) modified permit
issued shall contarn. in addition to all
applkable terms and conditions
required by 40 CFR part 122, the
following:
(a) Etfluent limitations and mass
loadings which will assure compliance
with the requirements of this subpart:
(hI A schedule or schedules of
compliance for:
(1) Pretreatment program
development required by § 125.66(c)’
(2) N’onindustrial toxics control
program required by § 125.66(d); aria
(3) Control of combined bwer
overflows required by § 125.67.
(C) Monitoring program requirements
that include:
(1) Biomonitoring requirements of
§ 125.63(b);
(2) Water quality requirements of
§ 125.63(c);
(3) Effluent monitoring requirements
of §5125.60(b), 125.62(c) and (d), and
125.63(d).
(dl Reporting requirements that
include the results of the monitoring
programs required by paragraph (c) of
this section at such frequency as
prescribed in the approved monitoring
program.
Appendix to Subpart G—Applicant
Questionnaire for Modification of
Secondary Treatment Requirements
0MB Control Number 2040-0088 Expires
on 2 /28196 PublIc reporting burden for this
collection of information is estimated to
average 1.295. 19.552 hours per response. for
small and large applicants, respectively The
reporting burden includes time for reviewing
instructions, gathering data, including
monitoring and toxics control activities, and
completing and reviewing the questionnaur
Send comments regarding the burden
estmate or any other aspect of this
collection. Including suggestions for reducing
the burden, to Oiief. Information Policy
Branch. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M St.. Sw (2136), Washington.
DC 20460 and Office of Management and
Budget. Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attn: Desk Officer for EPA.
Washington. DC 20503.
1. Inffoduthen
1. This questionnaire is to be submitted by
both small and large applicants for
modification of secondary treatment
requirements under section 301(h) of the
Clean Water Act (CWA). A small applicant is
defined as a PO’i’W that has a contributing
population to its wastawater treatment
facility of less than 50.000 and a protected
average dry weather flow of less than 5.0
million gallons per day (mgd. 0.22 cubic
meters/bed 140 CFR 125.58(c)l. A large
applicant is defined as a PO11V thai has a
population contributing to its wastewater
treatment facility of at least 50,000 or a
protected average dry weather flow of :cs
d.bcharge of at least 5.0 million gallons per
d w (mgd. 0.22 cubic meters/sec) (40 CI ’R
125.58(cll The questionnaire is in two
sertions. a general information and bas.c
requirements section (part II) and a techriral
evaluation section (part lii ). Satisfactory
completion by email and large dischargers of
the appropriate questions of this
questionna.re is necessary to enable EP’ to
iic:trrmtnc whether the applicant’s modilir. I
d& cttargt mects the criteria of scctinn lOll!.)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 152 / Tuesday. August 9. 1994 / Rules and Regulations
40667
and EPA regulations (40 R part 125.
subpart C).
2. Most small applicants should be able to
complete the questionnaue using available
inforTnation. However, small POTWs with
low initial dilution discharguig into shallow
waters or waters with poor dispersion and
ounsport characteristics. discharging near
distinctive and susceptible biological
habitats. or discharging substantial quantities
of toxics should anticipate the need to collect
additional information and/or conduct
additional analyses to demonsn’ate
compliance with section 301(h) criterIa. If
there are questions in this regard. applicants
should contact the appropriate EPA Regional
Office for guidance.
3. Guidance for responding to this
questionnaire is provided by the newly
amended section 301(h) technical support
document. Where available information is
incomplete and the applicant needs to collect
additional data during the period it Is
preparing the application or a letter of intent.
EPA encourages the applicant to consult with
EPA prior to data collection and submission.
Such consultation. particularly if the
applicant provides a project plan. will help
ensure that the proper data are gathered in
the most efficient matter.
4 The notation IL) means large applicants
must respond to the question. and (Si means
small applicants must respond.
II. General Information and Basic Data
Requ irements
A Trectment System Description
1. (LSI On which of the following are you
basing your application: a current discharge.
unproved discharge. or altered discharge. u
defined in 40 FR 125.58? (40 G’R 125.59(a))
2. (L.S) Description of the Treatinenu
Outfall System 140 CFR 125 62(a) and
125 62(e))
a Provide detailed descriptions and
diagrams of the treatment system and outfall
configuration which you propose to satisfy
the requirements of section 301(b) and 40
R part 125. subpart C. What is the total
discharge design flow upon which this
application is based?
b. Provide a map showing the geographic
location of proposed outfall(s) (I.e..
discharge). What is the latitude and longitude
of the proposed outfall(s)?
c. For a modification based on an unproved
or altered discharge. provide a description
and diagram of your current treatment system
and outfall configuration. Include the current
outfall’s latitude and longitude. if different
from the proposed outfall.
3 (L.S) Prunarv or equivalent treatment
requirements 140 R 125.60)
a Provide data to demonstrate that Your
effluent meets at least primary or equivalent
treatment requirements as defined in 40 R
12 5.58(r) 140 CFR 125.601
b. 11 your effluent does not meet the
or equivalent treatment
requirements. when do you plan to meet
them? Provide a detailed schedule. induding
design. construction. start.up and full
operatIon, with your applIcation. This
.equuement must be met by the effective date
of the new section 301(h) modIfied permit.
4 (L.S) Effluent Limitations and
Characteristics l4O R 125 61(b) and
125 62(e)(2fl
a. Identify the final effluent limitations for
five-day biochemical oxygen demand (SOD 1 ).
suspended solids, and pH upon which your
application for a modification is based
—BOD 1 ____mg/L i
—Suspended solids _____ mg/L
—pH (range)
b Provide data on the following effluent
characteristics for your current discharge as
well as for the modified discharge if different
from the current discharge
Flow (m 3 /sec)’
—minimum
—‘average dry weather
—average wet weather
—maximum
—annual average
BODdmglL) for the following plant flo s
—minimum
—average dry weather
—average wet weather
—maximum
—annual a’ erage
Suspended solids (mg/L) for the folloi ing
plant flows:
—minimum
—average dry weather
—average wet weather
—maximum
—annual average
Toxic pollutants and pesticides lug/Li
—list each toxic pollutant and pesticide
—list each 304(a)(I) criteria and toxic
pollutant and pesticide
pH.
—minimum
—tmaxunuzfl
Dissolved oxygen (mgFL prior to
chlorination) for the follots ing plant flows
—minimum
—average weather
—average wet eather
—maximum
—annual a’ erage
I mmediate dissol ed oxygen demand (mg/
LI.
S. (L.S) Effluent Volume and Mass
Emissions (4OCTR 125 62(e)(2) and 125 67)
a. Provide detailed analyses showing
projections of effluent volume (annual
average, m 3 /sec) and mass loadings (mt/yr) of
BOD, and suspended solids for the design
life of your t’eannent facility in five-year
increments. If the application is based upon
an improved or altered discharge. the
projections must be provided with and
without the proposed unpro ements or
alterations.
b. Provide projections for the end of your
five-year permit term for 1) the treatment
facility contributing population and 2) the
average daily total discharge flow for the
maximum month of the dry weather season.
6. (L.S) Average Daily Industrial Flow (&I
sec). Provide or estimate the average daily
industrial inflow to your treatment facility
for the same time increments as in question
ll.A.5 above. (40 CFR 125.66)
7. (L.$) Combined Sewer Overflows (40
R 125.67(b))
a. Does ( ill) you, treatment and collection
system include combined sewer o e Iows’
b. If yes, provide a description of ‘our plan
for minimizing combined sewer overflows to
the receiving water
8 (LS) Outfall/Diffuser Design Pros ide
the following data for your current discharge
as well as for the modified discharge if
different from the current discharge (40 CFR
12$ 62(a)(III
—Diameter and length of the outfall(s)
(meters)
—Diameter and length of the diffuser(s)
(meters)
—Angle(s) of port orientation(s) from
horizontal (degrees)
—Port diameter(s) (meters)
—Orifice contraction coefficient(s), if known
—Vertical distance from mean lower low
water (or mean low water) surface and
outfall port(s) centerline (meters)
—Number of ports
—Port spacing (meters)
—Design flow rate for each port. if multiple
ports are used (m 3 !sec)
B Receiving I1’ater Description
1 (L.S) Are you applying for a
modification based on a discharge to the
ocean (40 R 125.58(n)) or to a saline
estuart’ (40 FR 125.58( )l’ 140 R
125 59(a)).
2 (L.S) Is your current discharge or
modified discharge to stressed waters as
defined in 4OcFR 125 58(z)! If yes, what aie
the pollution sources contributing to the
stress’ (40CR 125.59(b)(4) and 125.62(flI
3. (L.S) Provide a description and data on
the seasonal circulation patterns in the
viciaitv of your current and modified
discharge(s). 140 CFR 125.62(a)).
4. (Li Oceanographic conditions in the
vicinity of the current and proposed
modified discharge(s). Provide data on the
following 140 FR 125 62(a))
—Lowest ten percentile current speed (m/
sac)
—Predominant current speed (rn/sac) and
direction (oue) during the four seasons
—Period(s) of maximum stratification
(months)
—Period(s) of natural upwelling events
(duration and frequency, months)
—Density profiles during period(s) of
maximum stratification
5. (L.S) Do the receiving waters for your
discharge contain significant amounts of
effluent previously discharged from the
treatment works for which you are applying
for a section 301(h) modified permit’ 140 CFR
125.57(a)(9)l
6. Ambient water quality conditions during
the period(s) of maximum stratification: at
the zone of initial dilution (ZID) boundary.
at other areas of potential impact. and at
control stations. )40 FR 125.62(a))
a (LI Provide profiles (with depth) on the
following for the current discharge location
and for the modified discharge location, if
different from the current discharge:
—BOD, (mg/Li
—Dissolved oxygen (mg/Li
—Suspended solids (mg/L)
—pH
—Temperature (‘C)
-------
40663 Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 152 / Tuesday. August 9. 1994 / Rules and Regulations
—Salinity Ippi)
—Transparency (turbidity. percent light
transmittance)
-Other significant variables leg.. nutrients.
304(a)(1) caterta and toxic pollutants and
pesticides. feed colifarm bacteria)
b . IS) Provide available data on the
following in the vicreaty of the current
discharge location and for the modified
discharge location, if different from the
current discharge (4O R 125.61(bI(1lI
—Dissolved oxygen (mg/LI
—Suspended solids (mg/LI
—pH
—Temperature (‘C)
—Salinity (ppt)
—Transparency (turbidIty. percent tight
transmittance)
—Other significant variables (e.g.. nuthents.
304(a)(1) criteria and toxic poihilants and
pesticides. focal coilform bacteria)
C. (LS)Are there other periods when
receiving water quality ditiotis may be
mate critical than the 1 w ”od’ ,s ) of maxhuum
stratification? If so. describe these end other
critical periods and data requeemd In 6.. for
the other cotical perIod(s). (40 R
125.62 (all ifl.
7. CL) Provide data ox wendy state sediment
dissolved oxygen dsi .,.and and dissolved
oxygen demand due to resuspension of
sediments in the vicinity of your cwreni and
modified discharge(s) (mgftlday).
C BIO IOgIcVJ Conditions
t.(L) Provide a detailed description of
representative biological aiannunitlas (e.g..
plankton. macrobentho,. demerral fish. etc.)
In the vicinity of yew ’ airiest and modified
discharge(* within the 210. at the 210
boundary, at other mew of potential
dtscherge.releted Impact . and at reference
(control) site.. Cemmunlty ch tarlatice so
be de ibed shall include (but not be limited
to) species ewnposttiotc ebundancei
dominance sad diwisityt spsttaUtesuporn )
distribution. growth and reproduction;
disease frequency; tiephic soucture and
productivity Uwii of
opportunistic species bloeceumutation of
toxic materials; and the oceurrence of mess
mortalities.
2. (LSh. Are disitnotiw habitats of limited
distribution (such.. kelp beds or coin) r.efe
located in areas potentially affected by the
modified dIscharge? (4001 3e5 Aa( r3 (
b. If yes. provide ln - --— on type.
extent. and location of h.hit.is .
3. (LS)a. Aser.i ,nmd.I or. . I n.I
fisheries located hi ar potentially -d
by the discharge? t4O R 125.62 Cc) and (d l )
b If yes. provide Information cm typ.
location, and value of fisbualee.
D. Slot. and Federal Lows (4001 12542
and 123.621oJfl1J
1. ILS) Are there water quality gandard,
applicabl, to the following pothnnnts for
which a modiP’’ ’ is requesteth
—Biochemical oxy ‘ 4 ” .’d or dissolved
oxygen?
—Suspended solids. turbidity. liejit
transmission, light sesz ia$. or
maintenance of the euphouc zone’
—pH of the recoivitig water?
2. (LS) If yes, what Is the water use
classification for your discharge area? Vhot
are the applicable standards for your
discharge ares fia t of the parameters lot
which a modification is requested? Provide a
copy of all applicable water quality standards
or a citation so whets they cmi be found.
3. (L.S) Will the modified discharge: (40
R 125.59(b)(3)l.
—Be consistent with applicable State coastal
zone management program(s) approved
under the Coastal Zone Management Act as
amended. 16 U.S.C. 1451 ci seq.? See 16
U.S.C 1456(c)(3)(A) (
—Be located In a marine sanctuary
designated under Title Ill of the Manne
Protecuon. Research. arid Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA) as amended. lb U.S.C 1431 et
seq.. or in an estuanne sanctuary
designated under the Coastal Zone
Management Act as amended. 16 U.S.C
1461? if located in a marine sanctuary
designated under Title II I of the MPRSA.
attach a copy of any certification or permit
required under regulations governing such
marine sanctuary. (See 16 U.S.C
1432(1 1(2) 1
—B. conaistent with the Endangered Species
Act as amended. 16 U.S.C. 1531 at seq.?
Provide the names of any threatened or
endongered species that inhabit or obtain
nutrients from waters that may be aff r d
by the modified discharge. Identify any
critical habitat that may be affected by the
modified discharge and evaluate whether
the modified discharge will affect
threatened oresdangered species or
modify a critical habitat. (See 16 U.S.C
1536(aI(2)I. —
4. (LS) Are you aware of any State or
Federal laws or regulations (other than the
Clean Water Act or the thre, statutes
Identified In Item 3 above) or an Executive
Order which Is applicable to your discharge?
If yes. provide sufficient information to
demonstrate that your modified discharge
will comply with such law(sL regulattonfsL
or order(s). (40 R 125.59 (b)(3 1 1.
10. TechnIel Evaluation
A. Physical Cliamcterlstia of Discharge (40
07? 125.621a 11
1. (L.S) Whet Is the critical initial dilution
for your current end modified discharge(s)
dining (1) the period(s) of maximum
onatificetton? and (2) any other critical
period(s) eI discharge ylumri.. ,. 1 ,uIldon.
water quality, biological seasons, or
oceanographic conditions?
2. (LS) What are the dimensions of the
zone of initial dilution for your modified
discharge(s)?
3. (LI What are the effects of ambient
airiest, and stratification on dispersion end
transport of the discharge ptumeA . .ss.fleId?
4. (SI Will there be significant
sedimentation of suspended solids in the
vicinity of the modified discharge?
5(L) Sedimentation of suspended solids
a. What fraction of the modified
discharges suspended solids will accumulate
within the vianity of the modified
discharge?
- b. What are the calculated ares(s) end
rate(s) of sediment acaimulatton within the
vicinity of the modified discharge(s) (gfml
c. What is the fate of senleable solids
transported beyond the calculated scdinzen.
accumulation area?
8. Compliance with Applicable Water
Quality Standards and CWA 530410ff I)
water quality at va 14001 725 62(bJ and
725.62 1a 1 1
1. (L.S) Vhat Is the concenu-atiun of
dissolved oxygen immediately following
initial dilution (or the period(s) of maximum
stratification and any other critical period(s)
of discharge volwnelcomposi lion. water
quality, biological seasons, or oceanographic
conditions?
2. (L.S) What is the (arflcid dissolved
oxygen depression and resulting
concentration due so SOD exar on of the
wastefield during the penod(ii) of maximum
stratification and any other u -uical period(s)?
3. CL) What are the dissolved oxygen
depressions and resulting concentrations
near the bottom due to steady sediment
demand and resuspension of sediments?
4. LL.S) What Is the increase in receiving
water suspended solids concenention
immediately following initial dilution of the
modified discharge(s)?
S. (LI What lithe change in remiving water
pH ImmedIately following Initial dilution c i
the modified discharge(s)? -
6. (L.S) Does (will) the modified discharge
axtiply with applicable water quality
standards for
-Dissolved oxygen?
—Suspended solids or surrogate standerdil
-pH?
7. (L.S) Provide data to demonstrat, that all
applicable State water quality standards, and
all applicable ester quality criteria
established under Section 304(aflh) of the
Clean water Ad he which there are no
directly corresponding numerical applicable
water quality standards approved by EPA. are
met at and li ,....d the boundary of the 210
under critical environmental and treatment
plant conditions In the waters surrounding or
ad(acent to the point at which your lfluont
is discharged. I4O R 125.G2CeXtJ)
6 (L.S) Provide the doivirminadon required
by 4001 125 .61(bNZ) for annpllance with
all applicable provisions of State law,
including water quality standards or. If the
determination hea ace yet bees received, a
copy of. letter to the appropriate agency(s)
requesting the required doterratnation.
C impact on F lab /ic Weiss’ Supplies (4001
225.62 1b iJ
1. (LS) Is there. planned or existing
public water supply (deeellnlzet loo IbcIIlty)
Intake in th . vicinity of the current or
modified discharge?
2. (L.S) If yen
a. What is the location of the intake(s)
(latitude and longitude)?
b. WIll the modified discharge(s) prevent
the moof Intake(s) for public water supply?
C. Will the modified discharge(s) cause
Increased treanneot requirements (or public
water supply(s) to meet local. State. and EPA
drinking water standards?
-------
Federal Resister / Vol. 59. No . 152 /_Tuesday. August 9, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
40669
o Biologicol Impact of Discharge (40 CFR
125 62(c)!
I (Li) Does (will) a balanced indigenous
population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife -
exist.
—Immediately beyond the ZID of the current
and modified discharge(s)’
—In all other areas beyond the ZID where
marine life is actually or potentially
affected by the current and modified
discharge(s)?
2. (Li) Have distinctive habitats of limited
distribution been impacted adversely by the
current discharge and will such habitats be
impacted adversely by the modified
discharge’
3. (Li) Have commercial or recreational
fisheries been impacted adversely by the
current discharge (e.g . warnings, restrictions,
closures, or mass mortalities) or will they be
impacted adversely by the modified
discharge?
4. (LS) Does the current or modified
discharge cause the following within or
beyond the ZID: (40 CFR 125.62(c)(3)J
—Mass mortality of fishes or invertebrates
due to oxygen depletion. high
concentrations of toxics, or other
conditions?
—An increased incidence of disease in
marine organisms?
—An abnormal body burden of any toxic
material in marine organisms?
—Any other extreme, adverse biological
impacts?
5. (Li) For discharges into saline estuarine
waters: 140 CFR 125.62 (c)(4)l
—Does or will the current or modified
discharge cause substantial differences in
the benthic population within the ZID and
beyond the ZID?
—Does or will the current or modified
discharge interfere with migratory
pathways within the ZID?
—Does or will the current or modified
discharge result in bioaccumulation of
to Lc pollutants or pesticides at levels
which exert adverse effects on the biota
within the ZID?
No section (h) modified permit shall be
issued where the discharge enters into
stressed saline estuarine waters as stated in
40 CFR 325 59(b)(4).
6 (L.S) For improved discharges. will the
proposed improved discharge(s) comply with
the requirements of 40 R 125.62(a) through
325 62(d)? (40 R 125.62(e))
7 (L.S) For altered discharge(s). will the
ltered discharge(s) comply with the
requirements of 40 CFR 125.62(a) through
125 62(d)? 140 R 125.62(e))
8. (Li) IF your current discharge is to
stressed ocean waters, does or will your
current or modified discharge: (40 CFR
125 62(01
—Contribute to. increase, or perpetuate such
stressed condition?
—Conthbute to further degradation of the
biota or water quality If the level of human
perturbatIon from other sources increases?
—Retard the recovery of the biota or water
quality if human perturbation from other
sources decreases?
E. Impacts of Discharge on Recreational
Activities 140 CFR 125.62(d)J
1. (L.S) Describe the existing or potential
recreational activities likely to be affected by
the modified discharge(s) beyond the zone of
initial dilution.
2. (L.S) What are the existing and potential
impacts of the modified discharge(s) on
recreational activities’ Your answer should
include, but not be limited to. a discussion
of fecal coliform bacteria.
3. (L.S) Are there any Federal. State. or
local restrictions on recreational activities in
the vicinity of the modified discharge(s)’ If
yes. describe the restrictions and provide
citations to available references.
4. (Li) If recreational lestrictions exist.
would such restrictions be lifted or modified
if you were discharging a secondary
treatment effluent?
F. Establishment of a Monitoring Program 140
CFR 125.63!
1. (Li) Describe the biological. water
quality, and effluent monitoring programs
which you propose to meet the criteria of 40
R 125.63. only those scientific
investigations that are necessary to study the
effects of the proposed discharge should be
included in the scope of the 301(h)
monitoring program (40 R
12 5.63(a)(1)(i)(B) (.
2. (L.S) Describe the sampling techniques.
schedule,, and locations, analytical
techniques. quality control and verification
procedures to be used.
3. (Li) Describe the personnel and
financial resources available to implement
the monitoring programs upon issuance of a
modified permit and to carry it out for the
life of the modified permit.
G Effect of Discharge on Other Point and
1 Vanpoin: Sources (40 CFR 225 64)
3. (Li) Does (will) your modified
discharge(s) cause additional treatment or
control requiremer.ts For any other point or
nonpoint pollution source(sP
2. (L.S) Provide the determination required
by 40 R 125 64(b) or. if the determination
has not yet been received, a copy of a letter
to the appropriate agency(s) requesting the
required deternuir.ation
H. Tox:cs Control Program and Urban Area
Pretreatment Program 140 CFR 12565 and
225.66!
1. a. (Li) Do you have any known or
suspected industrial sources of toxic
pollutants or pesticides’
b. (LS) If no. provide the certification
required by 40 CFR 125.66(a)(2) for small
dischargers. and required by 40 0 ’R
125.66(c)(2) for large dischargers.
c. (L.S9 Provide the results of wet and dry
weather effluent analyses for toxic pollutants
and pesticides as requited by 40 O R
125.66(a)(1). ( to the extent practicable)
d. (L.S) Provide an analysis of known or
suspected industrial sources of toxic
pollutants and pesticides identified in (1 1(c)
above as required by 4OCFR 125 66(b) ( to
the extent practicable)
2. (S)a. Are there any known or suspected
water quality, sediment accumulation, or
biological problems related to toxic
pollutants or pesticides from your modified
discharge(s)?
(Sib. if no. provide the certification
required by 40 ( R 125.66(d)(2) together
with available supporting data.
(Sic. IF yes. provide a schedule for
development and implementation of
nonindusthal toxics control programs to
meet the requirements of 40 CFR
126.66(d)(3).
(L)d. Provide a schedule for development
and implementation of a nonindustrial tox,cs
control program to meet the requirements of
4OCFR 125.66(d)(3).
3. (LS) Describe the public education
program you propose to minimize the
entrance of nonindustrini toxic pollutants
and pesticides into your treatment system.
(40 G’R 125.66(d)(l)l
4. (L.S) Do you have an approved
industrial pretreatment program?
a. if yes. provide the date of EPA approval.
b. Ifno.and If requited by 40 R part 403
to have an industrial pretreatment program.
provide a proposed schedule for
development and Implementation of your
industrial pretreatment program to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR part 403.
5. Urban area pretreatment requirement (40
R 125.651 Dlschargers serving a population
of 50.000 or mote must respond.
a. Provide data on all toxic pollutants
introduced into the treatment works from
industrial sources (categorical and
noncategorical).
b. Note whether applicable pretreatment
requirements are in effect for each toxic
pollutant. Are the industrial sources
introducing such toxic pollutants in
compliance with all of their pretreatment
requirements? Are these pretreatment
requirements being enforced? (40 CYR
125.65(b)(2)l
c. If applicable pretreatment requirements
do not exist for each toxic pollutant in the
POTW effluent introduced by industrial
sources.
—provide a description and a schedule for
your development and implementation of
applicable pretreatment requirements (40
CYR 325.65(c)). or
—describe how you propose to demonstrate
secondary removal equivalency for each of
those toxic pollutants, including a
schedule for compliance, by using a
secondary treatment pilot plant. (40 CYR
125.65(d))
IFR Dec. 94—19058 FlIed 8-0-94 ; 8.45 am)
once ce
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 144 / Thursday. July 28. 1994 / Notices
38473
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency. Region 10.
ACTION: Notice of Draft Ceneral NPDES
Permit, and Notice of Finding of No
Significant Impact.
SUMMARY: The Director, Water Division.
EPA Region 10. is proposing to reissue
general National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit no.
AK-G52-0000 for seafood processors in
Alaska pursuant to the provisions of the
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
The proposed general NPDES permit
will authorize discharges from offshore.
nearshore and shore-based vesselsand
onshore facilities engaged in the
processing of fresh, frozen, canned.
smoked, salted and pickled seafoods. -
The proposed permit will also authorize
discharges from offshore vessels
(operating more than one nautical mile
from shore at MLLW) that are engaged
in the processing of seafood paste.
mince or meal. The proposed permit
will authorize discharges of processing
wastes, process disinfectants. sanitary
wastewater and other wastewaters,
induding domestic wastewater, cooling
water, boiler waler, gray water,
freshwater pressure relief water,
refrigeration condensate, water used to
transfer seafood to a facility, and live
tank water. The proposed permit will
authorize discharges to waters of the
United States in and contiguous to the
State of Alaska, except for receiving
waters excluded from coverage as
protected, special, at-risk, degraded or
adjacent to a designated “seafood
processing center.”
The proposed general NPDES permit
for seafood processors in Alaska will not
authorize discharges from nearshore or
shore-based seafood processors of
mince, paste or meal (operating one
nautical mile or less from shore at
MLLW). The proposed permit will not
authorize discharges of petroleum
hydrocarbons. toxic pollutants, or other
pollutants not specified in the permit.
The proposed permit will not authorize
discharges to waters excluded from
coverage as protected. special, at-risk,
degraded or adjacent toe designated
“seafood processing center.”
A draft’NPDES permit, fact sheet and
ther documents of the administrative
record are available upon request.
PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUANCE DATE:
Monday. July 25, 1994.
PUBLIC NOTICE EXPIRATION DATE:
Tuesday. August 23. 1994.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Interested
persons may submit written comments
on the draft general NPDES permit to
the attention of Burney Hill at the
address below. All comments should
include the name, address, and
telephone number of the commenter
and a concise statement of comment and
the relevant facts upon which it is
based. Comments of either support or
concern which are directed at specific,
cited permit requirements are
appreciated. Comments must be
submitted to EPA on or before the
expiration date of the public notice.
After the expiration date of the public
notice, the Director, Water Division,
EPA Region 10, will make a final
determination with respect to
reissuance of the general permit. The
tentative requirements contained in the
draft general permit will become final
conditions if no substantive comments
are received during the public comment
period. The permit is expected to
become effective on November 1, 1994.
Persons wishing to comment on State
Certification of the proposed general
NPDES permit should submit written
comments within this 30-day comment
period to the State of Alaska. Alaska
Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC). 410 Willoughby
Avenue, Suite 105, Juneau, Alaska
99801—1795. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of Alaska
Water Quality Standards Consistency
Review.
Persons wishing to comment on the
State Determination of Consistency with
the Alaska Coastal Management
Program should submit written
comments within this 30-day comment
period, to the State of Alaska, Office of
Management and Budget, Division of
Governmental Coordination, P.O. Box
AW, Juneau, Alaska 99811—0165.
Comments should be addressed to the
attention of Alaska Coastal Management
Program Consistency Review.
Persons wishing to comment on the
EPA Finding of No Significant Impact
(FNSI) (see Attachment 1), based on the
environmental assessment, should
submit written comments within this 30
day period. All comments should
include the name, address and
-telephone number of the commenter
and a concise statement of the basis of
any comment and the relevant facts
upon which it is based. Comments
should be submitted to Burney Hill at
the address below.
PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearings
on the proposed general NPDES permit
are tentatively scheduled to be held in
Anchorage, Alaska, and Seattle,
Washington. The Anchorage hearing
will be held at the Federal Building. 222
West Seventh, Anchorage, Alaska, on
Thursday, August 25, 1994. front 6 p.m.
until all persons have been heard.
Persons Interested in making a
statement at the Anchorage heanng
should contact Valerie Haney at (907)
271—3651 by 4:00 p.m. PDT by August
22,1994. The Seattle hearing will be
held at Freeway Park Plaza Building.
Room IZA. 1200 SIxth Avenue. Seattle,
Washington, on Tuesday. August 30,
1994, from 2 p.m. until all persons have
been heard. Persons interested in
making a statement at the Seattle
hearing should contact Florence Carroll
at the address below oral (206) 553—
1760 by 4:00 p.m. PDT on Friday,
August 26. 1994.
Either or both of the public hearings
will be cancelled if insufficient interest
is expressed in them. Interested persons
can contact Florence Carroll or Valerie
Haney between the hours of 8:30 a.m.
and 4 p.m. PDT to confirm that the
hearings will take place. At the
hearings, interested persons may submit
oral or written statements concerning
the draft general NPDES permit.
APPEAL OF PERMfl: Within 120
days following the service of notice of
EPA’s final permit decision under 40
R § 124.15. any Interested person may
appeal the Permit La the Federal Court
of Appeal in accordance with Section
509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act.
Persons affected by a general permit
may not challenge the conditions of the
the Permit as a right of further EPA
proceedings. Instead, they may either
challenge the Permit in court or apply
for an individual NPDES permit and
then request a formal hearing on the
issuance or denial of an individual
permit.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD: The
complete administrative record for the
draft permit is available for public
review at the EPA Region 10 Library.
10th Floor, at the address listed below.
Copies of the draft general NPDES
permit. fact sheet, and the
environmental assessment are available
upon request from the Region 10 Public
Information Center at 1—800-.424—4EPA
(4372).
ADDRESSES: Public comments should be
sent to: Environmental Protection
Agency Region 10. Wastewater
Management and Enforcement Branch
(WD—137), 1200 SIxth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington, 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATiON CONTACT
Burney Hill, of EPA Region 10, at the
address listed above or telephone (206)
553—1761.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
After review of the facts presented ir.
the notice printed above, I hereb seri.
(FRL—5021—4 1
Draft General NPDES Pemalt for
Seafood Processors In Alaska in
Waters of the United States: General
NPDES Permit No. AK-G52-0000
-------
J8474
Federal aegister I VoL 59 No.. 144 1 Thursday. July 28. 1994 1 Notices.
pursuant t tha p rovimco.of 5 U.S.C.
605(bl that this general NPDES permit
will not have a irifi nt Impact on a
substantial munha , of aU entities.
Mozeovm,.the permit reduces a
significant admiiwatratlv, burden on
regulated sources.
Datad July m. test
Janis Hastlip.
Associate Director. Water Division.
A” ” ” L. ThaImg of No Sigi..f ani
Impact (FNSI)
To All lula..atlcd Government Agencies.
Public Groups, and ZndividUaIE
In eomrdaaca with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) procedures for
complying with the National Envrn,ninental
Policy Act (NEPAl. 40 C7R Paste. Subpart
F. EPA has conducted an env rownentai
review of the following proposed action:
Reiw’ ” National Pollutant
Discharge iii * Syatani (NPDES I
permit no. AJG . .GSZ-000 to owners and
operatoes of facilities .ngeg.d. the
processing of esafood. both Ousting and
onshore facilities. In certain wotam of the
State of Alaska and waters of the United
State. adjacent to the AIeeka.State Watei -
The general NPDES permit requirements.
including effluent Ibnitatlons.inonitonng
provisloas. and other conditions applicable
to the operations covered en specified In the
proposed pesmiL The permit fact sheet
describes the heals fat the permit provisions.
An environmental . a—’nt (EA) for this
proposed action has been prepared. Under
the proposed on. those new source
seafood processing iUde. which are
excluded from the general P permit
will continue to be aibjecito Individual
NEPA reviews. involving preparation of an
EA and. d lmpa couId be algnifl ” ’ .t. an
environmental hnpa statement (ES).
Based on the EA. and in zdaoce with
the guidelben for dstezirilnlng the
•jgnifi nr of federal actions (40 R
1508.271 arid EPA criteria for Initiating an
EIS (40 R 6.605). EPA has concluded that
reissimom of the General NPOES Permit will
not result In a slgelflomt effect on the human
environment. This action will not
significantly a land twa t uI or
population. wetlands or fl pIain. . -
threatened or endangered epeotes. farmlands.
ecolngfr IIy critical areas, historic resources.
air quality, water quality, noise levels. fish
and wildilfa resesnnm. nor will It conflict
with loceL regional, or state land
use pians or policies. Far the above reasons
EPA buii mI1 that an will not he
prepared. A copy of the EA. ulna2iog the
potential Iinpa of the action and
explaining why an S Ii ant required Is
available upon request by callIng (206) 553-
1761. or at the above address, and Is
incorporated Into thIs FNSI by reference.
Comments supporting or dL. 0 ing with
this FNSI may be submitted to EPA at the
above address far conalderation. After
evaluatIng the comments received. EPA will
makes final decision. No administrative
action will be taken on the proposed
reiuuance for at least 30 day. after the
release data (indicated abovel of this FNSI.
received during this pnh1I notlr peried
befor, taking final re4nn .
Slncarel )p,. -
Janice Hastings far ( ar1es B. Findily.
Director. Weta Divisrrg ,
1FR Doc. 64-18325 Filed 7-Z7-9A &45am [
ansesco es — -
FEDERAL RESERVE. SYSTEM
Carolina First BancShares, Inc., at aL;
Formations of; Acquisitions by; and.
Mergers of Bank Holding Companies
The companies listed in this notice
have applied for the Board’s approval
under section 3 of the Bank Holding
Company Act (12 U.S.C 1842) and §.
225.14 of the Board’s Regulation “((12
CFR 225.14) to become a bank holding
company or to acq uiraa bank or bank
holding company. The factors that are
considered.in acting on the applications
are set forth in sectIon 3(c) of the Act
(12 U.S.C 1842(c ) ).
Each application is available for -. -
immediate inspect ion at the Federal
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the -
application has been accepted rot.
processing. it will also be available for
inspection at the offices of the Boarda(
Governors. Interested. persons may
express their views in writing to the
Reserve Bank or to the offices of the
Board of Governors. Any f mmnnt
an application that requests a hearing
must include a statement of why a
written presentation would not suffice
in lieu of a hearing, identifying
specifically any questions of fact that
are in dispute and snmmari ng
evidence that would be presented ate
hearing. ...
Unless otherwise noted, comments
regarding each of these applirat .nn
must be received, not later than August
22.. 1994.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of
Richmn .d (Lloyd W. Bostlan. Jr.. Senior
Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street.
Richmond, Virginia 23261:
1. Carolina First BanoShares. Inc..
Lincolnton, North Carolina: to acquit.
20 percent of the voting shares of First
Gaston Bank of North Carolina.
Gastonia. North Carolina. a do nova
bank.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
(Zane R. Kelley. Vice President) 104
Marietta Street. NW.. Atlanta. Georgia
30303:
1. Commercial Bancorp of Gwinnett.
Inc.. Lawrenceville, Georgia: to merge
with Commercial Bancorp of Georgia.
Inc.. Atlanta. Georgia. and thereby
indirectly acquire Commercial Bank of
Georgia. Atlanta. Georgia.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System. July 22. 1994.
I’ m - I. khm ‘ .‘. ‘
Deputy Sw.ilu .ry of the Board.
(FR Dec. 64-135Th FlIed 7-V ’ 94: 8:45 aml.
OLUNO C C C I 1215414
= Heritage Bancshares,. Inc., at al.;
Formations of; Acquisitions by; and
Mergers of Bank Holding Companies
The companies listed in this notice.
have applied for the Board’s approval
under section 3 of the Bank Holding
Company Act. (12 U.S.C. 1842) and
225.14 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12
CFR 225.34) to become a bank holding
company or to acquire a bank or bank
holding company. The factors that are
considered in acting on the applications
are set forth in section 3(c) of the A
(12 U.S.C.. 1842(c)).
Each application is available for
immediate, inspection at.the Federal
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the
application has been accepted for
processing, it will also be avaflable for
inspection at the offices of the Board of
Governors. Interected persons may
- express. their views in writing to the
Reserve Bank or to the offices of the
- Board of Governors, Any comment on
an application that requests a. hearing
must includes statement of why a
written presentation would not suffice
in lieu of a hearing. identifying
specifically any questions of fact that
are in dispute and sumsun ining thi
evidence that would be presented at a -
hearing.
Unlesa otherwise noted.. comments
regarding each of these applications
must be received not later than August
22,1994. - -
A. Federal Reserve Bank of
Richanend (Lloyd W. Bostian. Jr.. Senior
Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street.
Richmond, Virginia 23281
1. Heritage Bancshares. lai ..
Mannington. West Virgln& to become a
bank holding company by acquiring 100’
percent of the voting shares of First
Pirrh nge Bank. Mannington. West
Virginia.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
(James A. Bluemle, Vice President) 230
South LaSalle Street. Chicago. Illinois
60690:
1. Countiy Bank Shares Corporation.
Mount Horeb. Wisconsin; to acquire 100
percent of the voting shares of BeHeville
Bancehares Corporation, Belleville,
Wisconsin. and thereby indirectly
acquire BeIlevilIe, State Bank,
Belleville. Wisconsin.
C. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
(Randall C. Sumner, VIce President) 411
Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63186:
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 144 I Thursday. July 28. 1994 I Notices
38465
decrease in the number of active
MSWLFs as a result of the April 9. 1994
Federal deadline for small landfills to
either close or be subject to all of the
federal criteria. Twenty.eight (28)
facilities are under Pan 360 permits.
eleven (11) facilities are under consent
order. and two (2) facilities are
operating without either a permit or
consent ordes.
New York State is concentrating its
efforts to bring all landfills that receive
municipal solid waste into compliance
with the Part 360 regulations through
one or more forms of enforcement
actions. Landfills that are permitted
under the revised Part 360 regulations.
effective October 9. 1993, will meet the
federal criteria. For existing facilities all
owners or operators must file a renewal
application if they intend to continue
construction or operation beyond the
expiration date of existing permits. For
those facilities with Part 360 permits
that will expire over the next 2—3 years.
the Department will ensure that each
such facility meets the applicable
Federal and state regulations before a
renewal permit is issued. Further, for
the estimated seven facilities with
permits that wiLl expire three or more
years beyond the date of program
approval, the Department will pursue
permit modifications in accordance
with requirements contained in 6
NYCRR Part 621 Uniform Procedures.
New York State expects to complete
those seven permit modifications so as
to ensure compliance with both federal
and state regulations within three years
of program approval. Those facilities
operating under a consent order will
either be required to close or be
upgraded to meet the applicable
regulations in accordance with the
terms and conditions of their consent
order.
New York does not have the statutory
authority to enforce the MSWLF permit
program on Indian Lands. MSWLFS
located on Indian Lands are subject to
the Federal Criteria.
The EPA will hold two public
hearings on its tentative decision.
Comments can be submitted orally at
the hearing or in writing at the time of
the hearing. The public may also submit
written comments on EPA’s tentative
determination to the location indicated
in the ADDRESSES section of this notice
such that they are received by the close
of business on September 13. 1994.
Copies of New York’s state application
are available for inspection and copying
• at the locations indicated in the
ADDRESSES section of this notice.
EPA will consider all public
comments on its tentative determination
received during the public comment
period and during each public hearing.
Issues raised by those comments may be
the basis for a determination of
inadequacy for New York’s state
program. EPA expects to make a final
decision on whether or not to approve
New York’s state program by November
1. 1994. and will give notice of it in the
Federal Register. The notice will
include a summary of the reasons for
the final determination and responses to
all major comments.
Section 4005(8) of RCRA provides that
citizens may use the citizen suit
provisions of Section 7002 of RCRA to
enforce the Federal MSWLF criteria in
40 CFR Part 258 Independent of.any
State/Tribal enforcement program. As
EPA explained in the preamble to the
final MSWLF criteria. EPA expects that
any owner or operator complying with
provisions in a State/Tribal program
approved by EPA will be considered to
be in compliance with Federal Criteria.
See 56 FR 50978. 50995 (October 9.
1991).
Compliance With Executive Order
12866
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this notice from the
requirement of Section 6 of Executive
Order 12866.
Certification Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.s.c.
605(b). 1 hereby certify that this
approval will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. It does not
impose any new burdens on small
entities. This notice, therefore, does not
require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
Authority: This notice is issued under the
authority of Section 4005 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6946.
Dated: July 21. 1994.
Jeanne M. Fox.
Regional Administrator.
(FR Doc. 94—i8450 Filed 7—27—94. 845 ami
ume coo!
Superfund Program; Availability of
Guidance Document
(FRL-a021 -3]
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTiON: Notice of Availability of
Guidance Document.
Text
Section 106(b) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response.
Compensation. and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA). 42 U.S C. 9606(b). as
amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986. allows any person who
complies with an EPA order issued
under section 106(a) of the statute to
petition for reimbursement of the
reasonable costs incurred in complying
with the order, plus interest. Reimbursal
is authorized if a petitioner can
establish that it was not liable for
response costs, or that the Agency’s
selection of a response action was
arbitrary or capricious or otherwise not
in accordance with law.
The authority to decide whether to
grant such petitions has been delegated
by the President to the EPA
Administrator, and redelegated to EPA’s
Environmental Appeals Board under
EPA Delegation of Authority CERCLA
14—27 (June 1994). EPA is today
announcing the availability of a
guidance document. “Guidance on
Procedures for Submitting CLA
Section 106(b) Petitions and on EPA
Review of those Petitions.” issued by
the Environmental Appeals Board on
June 9. 1994. This guidance document.
which supersedes previous Agency
guidance. details both the information a
petitioner is expected to submit as part
of a petition for reimbursement and the
procedures the Board intends to follow
in evaluating petitions. This guidance is
applicable to all petitions submitted
after June 9, 1994, and may also be
applied, to the extent practicable. to
petitions pending on that date.
FOR FURThER INFORMAT ION CONTACT:
For copies of the guidance document or
more detailed information on specific
aspects of the Section 106(b) program.
please contact Stuart Cane
Environmental Appeals Board (1103B).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW.. Washington. DC
20460, (202) 501—7060.
Dated. July 21. 1994.
Edward E. Reich,
Environmental Appeals Judge.
(FR Doc. 94—18331 Filed 7—27—94. 8.45 dm1
eILUNQ COD! I 5IO-5O-M
(FRL- O16-ej
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES);
Preparation of Draft General Permit for
the States of Maine, Massachusetts,
and New Hampshire
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Nbtice; Preparation of Draft
General NPDES Pernilts—MAG6400ri’),
MEC640000. and NIICS40000.
-------
3M68
Federal RegiM”.r L Vol 5 No. 144 I Thursday. ruiy 28. 1994 ! Notices
SUMMARY: The Reg anal Administrator
ofRegionLls today providing Notice of
a Draft General NPDES P it for . water
trea ent facilities In certain waters of
the States of Maine, M t iwhusetta. and.
New Hampshire. This draft general
NPDES Permit proposes effluent
lImitations, standards, prohibitions and
management practices for these types of
discharges (Appendix A contains the
Draft General NPDES Penruts and
Appendix B is the Draft General
Conditions applicable to all three
general permits). The permit will
become effective 30 days after the date
of publication of the anal general permit
in the Federal Register. The perunt will
expire 5 years from the effective date.
Owners and/or operators of facilities
discharging effluent from water
trea ent facilities will be required to
submittoEPA.Regionl.anotlceof
intent (NOl) to be covered by the
appropriate general permit and will
receive a written notification from EPA
of permit coverage and authorization to
discharge under the general permit.
The draft permit is based on an
administrative record available for
public review at: Environmental
Protection Agency. Region I. John F.
V .nn dy Federal Building. W!Qvl.
Boston. Massachusetts 02203.
The following “Fad Sheet and
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION” section
sets forth principal facts and the ‘..
significant factual. legal. and policy
questions considered in the
development of the draft permits.
DATES: For comment period: Interested
persons may submit cnmmants on the
draft general permits as part of the
administrative record to the Regional
Mmii is*rator. Region I at the address
given in the preceeding “SUMMARY’
section no later than August 29. 1094.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION AND COPIES OF
DRAFT GENERAL NPOES PERMITS:
Additional Information concerning the
draft permits may be obtained betweew
the hours of 9:00 a.m. au d 4.00 p.m..
Monday through Friday excluding
holidays from: Suprokuh Sarker.
Wastewater Management Branch. Water
Management Division. Environmental
Protection Agency. J.F. Kennedy Federal
Building. WMN. Boston. Mwi .zarhusetts
02203. Telephone (617) 565—3573.
FACT SHEET AND SUPPLEMENTARY
INORMATION:
I. Background Information
Generoi Permits
SectIon 301(a) of the Clean Water Act
(the Act) provides that the discharge of
pollutants Is unlawful except In
accordance with a National Pollutant
Dica hnrge FllvnIn*tlon System (NPDES)
permit. Although such permits to date
have generally been issued to individual
discharges. EPA’s regulations authorize
the issuance. of “general permits” to
categories of discharges. See 40 CFR
122.28(48 FR 14146. April 1.1983). EPA.
may issue a single. general permit to a
category of point sources Located within
the same geographic area whose permits
warrant ç mtIn . pollutant control
measures.
The Director of an NPDES permit
program is authorized to issue a general
permit if there are a number of point
sources operating in a geographic area
thaz:
1. Involve the same or substantially
cimilar types of operations:
2. Discharge the same types of wastes;
3. Require the same effluent
limitations or operating conditions.
4. RequIre the same or imiIar
monitoring requirements. and
5. In the opinion of the Regional
Mminictrator, are more appropriately
controlled under a general permit than
under individual permits. -
Violations of a condition of a general
permit constitutes a violation of the
Clean Water Act and subjects the -
discharger to the penalties in Section.
309 of the Ad.
Any owner or operator authorized by
a general permit may be excluded from
coverage of a general permit by applying
for an individual permit. This request
may be read. by submitting a NPDES
permit application together with reasons
supporting the request no later than 90
days after publication by EPA of the
final general permit In the Federal
Register. The Regional Administrator
may require any person authorized by a
general permit to apply for and obtain
an individual permit. Any interested
person may petition the Regional
Administrator to take this action.
However, individual permits will not be
Issued for sources discharging effluent
from water treatment facility covered by
this general permit unless It can be
clearly demonstrated that Inclusion
under the general permit Is
Inappropriate. The Regional
Administrator may consider the
Issuance of Individual permits when
1. The discharge(s) Is a significant
contributor of pollution;
2. The discharge(s) is not in
compliance with the terms and
conditions of the general permit:
3. A change has occurred In the
availability of demonstrated technology
or practices for the control or abatement
of pollutants applicable to the point
source:
4. Effluent limitations guidelines are
subsequently promulgated for the point
sources covered by the general permit:
* 5. A Water Quality Management plan
cdflthin(ng requirements applicable to
suchpolntsouromisapproveéor -.
6. The requirements listed In the -
previous paragraphs are not met.
B. Coverage Under This General Permit
Under this general permit. owners
and operators of potable water treatment
plants in Massachusetts, Maine and
New Hampshire may be granted
authorization to dI rh*rge process
generated wastewatars into waters of the
respective States as followm
a. Treated presodimentation
underflow
b Treated underfiow from the
coagulation/settling processes using
aluminum compounds or polymers as
coagulants; and
-c. Treated filter backwaskwater from
filters.
This permit shall apply specifically to
operators that have a discharge from a
point source such as a.sludge settling
lagoon or other device whereby
comparable control of suspended solids
Is possible.
Authorization under the permit shall
require prior submittal of certain facility
information. Upon receipt of all
required information, the permit issuing
authority may allow or disallow
coverage under the general permit
The following list shows the criteria
which will be used In evaluating
whether or not an Individual permit
may be required Instead of a general
permit.
1. Evidence on non-compliance under
previous permit for the operation:
2. Preservation of high quality waters
and fisheries:
3. Facilities with an effluent discharge
flow of over 2.00 MCD ‘ mum daily
for the states of and New
Hampshire and 0.15 MCD mmdmum
daily for the state of Maine.
4. Production of effluent at the facility
other than using aluminum compound
or polymer as coagulant, and
5. Use of land application asa means
of dfnith*wge.
6. For the state of Malne,a minimum
dilution of effluent of 100:1 In the
receiving water at 7Q10 should be
stipulated.
The similarity of the discharges has
prompted EPA to prepare this draft
general permit for public review and
comment When issued, this permit will
enable facilities to maintain compliance
with the Act and will extend
environmental and regulatory controls
to a large number of dWJi uges and
reduce some permit backlog. The
Issuance of this general permit for the
geographic areas described below Is
warranted by this similarity of(s)
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 144 I Thursday. July 28. 1994 I Notices
38467
— environmental conditions. (b) State
regulatory requirements applicable to
the discharges and receiving waters, and
(c) technology employed.
Maine
In the State of Maine. there are 271
industrial applicants or perinittees. It is
estimated that 13 of the industries that
have direct discharges to the waters of
the State are strictly water treatment
facilities.
New Hampshire ‘ . -
In the State of New Hampshire. there
are 171 estimated industrial
applications or permittees. ft is
estimated that 2 or more of the
industries that have the direct
discharges to the waters of the State are
strictly water treatment facilities.
Massachusetts
In the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. there are 651 industrial
• applicants or permittees. It is estimated
that 33 of the industries that have direct
discharges to the waters of the State are
strictly water treatment facilities.
II. Conditions of the Draft General
NPDES Permit
A. Geographic Areas
Maine (Permit No. MEG640000)
AU of the discharges to be authorized
by the general NPDES permit for the
State of Maine from dischargers are
limited to Class B. C. SB and SC waters
of the State. except lakes. The drainage
areas must be more than 10 square
miles. -
Massachusetts (Permit No. MAC640000)
All of the discharges to be authorized
by the general NPDES permit for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
dischargers are into all waters In Water
Quality Classifications B. C, SB and SC
as designated in Massachusetts Water
Quality Standards, 314 QvW. 4JJ0et seq.
New Hampshire (Permit No.
NHG6400 00)
All of the discharges to be authorized
by the general NPDES permit for the
State of New Hampshire dischargers are
into all waters of the State of New
Hampshire unless otherwise restricted
by the State Water Quality Standards.
New Hampshire RSA 485-A:8.
B. Notification by Pennittees
Operators of facilities whose
discharge, or discharges. ate described
in Part IS and whose facilities are
located In the geographic areas
described In Part II. A. above may
submit to the Regional Administrator.
Region I. a notice of intent to be covered
by the appropriate general permit. This
written notification must include the
owner’s or operator’s legal name and
address, the number and type of
facilities to be covered, the facility
locations, the names of the receiving
waters Into which discharge will occur.
The facilities authorized to discharge
under a final general perqtit will receive
written notification from EPA. Region I.
within 30 days of permit coverage.
Failure to submit to EPA, Region 1, a
notice of intent to be covered or failure
to receive from EPA written notification
of permit coverage means that the
facility is not authorized to discharge.
C. Effluent Limitations
1. Statutory Requirements . -
The Clean Water Act requires all
dischargers to meet effluent limitations
based on the technological capability of
dischargers to control the discharge of
the pollutants. Section 301(b)(1)(A)
requires the application of “Best
Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available” (BPT) Section
301(b)(2) (A). (C), (D). and (F) requires
the application of “Best Available
Technology Economically Available”
(BAT) by July 1. 1984. for all toxic -
pollutants referred to in Table 1 of
Committee Print Numbered 95-30 of the
Committee en Public Works and
Transportation of the House of
Representatives and not later than three
years after the date any limitations are
established for toxic pollutants listed
under paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of
Section 307 of the Act which are not
referred to in subparegraph (C) of
Section 301(b)(2). Section 301(b)(2)(A)
and (F) requires “Best Available
Treatment Technology Economically
Achievable’& (BAT) for nonconventional
pollution by July 1. 1984. md Section
301(b)(2)(E) requires the application of
the Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT) for conventional
pollutants by uly 1, 1984. The effluent
limitations in the general permit are
consistent with these statutory
requirements.
2. Technology.based Effluent
Limitations . -
The Environmental Protection Agency
has not developed effluent guidelines
for water treatment facilities. In the
absence of national standards, effluent
limitations for the TSS limitations ate
based upon best professional judgement
pursuant to Section 401(a)(1) of the
CWA,
The “Maximum Daily” TSS limitation
and the limitations for settleable solids
and pH are based upon state
certification requirements under Section
401(alll) of the CWA, 40 ( R 124.53
and 124.55. and water quality
considerations,
3. Water Quality Standards
The effluent from the water treatment
facility may contain toxic pollutants due
to use of chemicals and chlorine.
However, they do not contain hazardous
pollutants or oil and grease. Therefore,
water quality criteria established for oil
and grease and hazardous pollutants do
not apply to these discharges. Water
Quality Standards applicable to these
discharges are lImited to pH. seettleable
solids, and TSS. In addition testing
requirements are necessaty for
aluminum, chlorine and LC5O, C—
NOEC. The limits of total residual
chlorine and aluminum for the state of
Maine are based upon state certification
requirements.
4. Antidegsadation Provisions
The conditions of the permit reflect
the goal of the CWA and EPA to achieve
and maintain water quality standards.
The environmental regulations
pertaining to the State Antidegradation
,Policies which protect the State’s
surface waters from falling below State
standards for water quality are found in
the following provisions. Maine Title
38, Article 4—A, Section 464.4.F.;
Massachusetts Watør Quality Standards
314 CMR 4.04 Antidegradation
Provisions; and New Hampshire policy
RSA 485—A:8, VI Part Env-Ws 437 01
and Env-Ws 437.02.
This general permit will not apply to
any new or increased discharge unless
it can be determined that such
discharges will result in insignificant
effects to the receiving waters. This
• determination shall be made in
accordance with the appropriate State
Antidegradation Policies. . -
5. Mpnitoring and Reporting
Requirements
Effluent limitations and monitoring
requirements are included in the general
permit describing requirements to be
imposed on facilities to be covered,
Facilities covered by the final general
permits will be required to submit to
EPA. Region I , and the appropriate State
a Discharge Monitoring Report
containing effluent data on a semi.
annual basis.
The monitoring requirements have
been established to yield data
representative of the discharge under
authority of Section 308 a) of the Act
did 40 CFR 122.41ffl. 122.44(1) and
122.48, and as certified by the State.
-------
38468
Federal Register I VoL 59 No. 144/ Thursday. July28. 1994/ Notices
ULtherRequirminenja .. .. -
The I InAiTI1flg conditions of the
permit are based on the NPDES
zegulations 40 parts 122 through
125 and consist primarily of
- management requirements common tO
all permits.
IV. State Ceztificatlon
Section 301(bJ(1)(C} of the Act
requires that NPDES permits contain
conditions which ensure compliance
with applicable State water quality
standards or limitations. Section 401
requires that States certify that Federally
issued permits are in compliance-with
State law.
These permits are for operations
within waters of the States. EPA is
requesting the States to review and
provide appropriate certification to
these general permits pursuant to 40
CFR 124.53.
V. Adminidratlve Aspects
A. Request To Ba Covered
Owners or operators of water
treatment facility discharges are not
covered by this general permit until
they meet two requirements. First, they
must send a Letter of intent to EPA
indicating that they meet the
requirements of the permit and wish to
be covered. Second. they must be
notified by EPA that they are covered by
a general permit. lfthe fecility has an
existing individual NPDES permit, it
will be terminated as outlined in 40 R
122.28(b)(2)(ivl.
B. Mechanisms
All persons. including dlschargers
who believe any condition of the draft
permit is inappropriate must raise all
issues and submit all available
arguments and supporting material for
their arguments in full by the close of
the public comment period. to the U. S.
EPA. Wastewater Management Branch.
WMN. JFK Federal Building. Boston,
Massachusetts. 02203. Any person, prior
to such date. may submit a request in -
writing for a public hearing to consider
the draft permit to EPA and the State
Agency. Such requests shall state the
nature of the issues proposed to be
raised in the hearing. A public hearing
may be held after at Least a 30 .day
public notice whenever the Regional
Administrator finds that response to this
notice indicates significant interest. In
reaching a final decisibn on the draft
permits. the Regional Administrator will
respond to all significant comments and,
make these responses available to the
public at EPAs Boston office.
Following the close of the comment
period, and after the public hearing. if
• such hearing is held, the Regional -
Administrator will issue a final permit
in the Federal Register
C The COastal Zone Manageprent Act
The Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA). 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.. and its
implementing regulations (15 CFR Part
9301 require that any federally licensed
activity affecting the coastal zone with
an approved Coastal Zone Management
Program (CZMP) be determined to be
consistent with the CZMA. EPA. Region
1. has determined that these general
NPDES permits are consistent with the
CZMA. EPA has requested the
Massachusetts. Maine. and New
Hampshire coastal zone agencies for a
determination that these three permits
are consistent with their respective State
policies.
D. The Endangered Species Act -
EPA Region I has concluded that the
discharges to be covered by the general
NPDES permits will not affect or
jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered or threatened species or
adversely affect its critical habitat EPA
has requested consultations with the
U.S. FISh and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service to
confirm this conclusion. -
- E. Environmental Impact Statement
Requirements
The general permits do not authorize
the construction of any water resources
propect or the impoundment of any
water body or have any effect on
historical roperty. and are not major
Federal activities needing preparation of
any Environmental Impact Statement.
Therefore, the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act. 16 11 S.C. 1273 at seq.. the National
Hlàtortc Preservation Act of 1966. 16
U.S.C 470 et seq., the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act. 16 U.S.C. 661 at seq..
and the National Environmental Policy
Act. 33 U.S.C. 4321 at seq., do not apply
to the issuance of this general NPDES
permit. -
VL Other Legal Requirements
A. Economic Impact (Executive Order
12866)
EPA has reviewed the effect of
Executive Order 12866 on this draft
general permit and has determined that
it is not a significant rule under that
order. This regulation was submitted
previously to the Office of Management
and Budget for review as required by the
former Executive Order 12291. The
Office of Management and Budget
exempted this action from the review
requirements of Executive Order 12291
pursuant to Section 8(b) oF that Order.
which was revoked and superseded by.
Executive Order 12886...
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements
imposed on regulated facilities by these
draft general NPDES permits under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. 44
U.S.C 3501 at. seq. The information
collection requirements of these draft
permits have already been approved by
the Office of Management and Budget
under submissions made for the NPDES
permit. program under the provisions of
the Clean Water Act. No comments from
the Office of Management and Budget or -
the public were received on the
information collection requirements in
these permits.
C. The Regulatory Flexibility Act
After review of the Facts presented in
the notice printed above. I hereby.
certify, pursuant to the provisions of 5
U.S.C. 605(b). that this permit does not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, the draft permit will reduce
a significant administrative burden on
regulated sources.
Dated: July 6. 994.
John DeVWan,
Regional Administrator.
Appendix A—Draft Geasaul Permit
Th’oposed Dmfl Carters! Pormit Under the-
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System !NPD SI
Natsi The Following draft general NPDES
permit has been combined for purposes of
this Federal Regieter notice uz order to
eliminate duplication of material common to
all permits for the individual states.
1. Massachusetts. Maine and New
Hampshire Draft General Permit.
In corn piiancc with the provisions of the
Federal Clean Water Act. as amended. (33
U.S.C. 1251 etseq.J the CWA operators of
facilities located in Part HA. which discharge
affluent from water aestmeet facilities as
definedin PaitiBat.rat.ofoeamll llon
gallons pevdaywlesatnwanosns
designated in Fart II A In accordance with
effluent limitations, monitoring requirements
and other conditions set forth herein.
This permit shall become effective on the
date of the signature below.
This permit and the authortmtion to
discharge expire at midnight. five years from
date of signature.
This permit consists of Part I below
including effluent limitations, monitoring
requirements etc. and Parr ii under Appendix
B. General Requirements.
Operators of facilities within the general
permit area who fail to notify the Director of
their intent to be covered by this general
permit and receive no written notification of
permit coverage or those who are denied by
the Director are not authorized under this
general permit to discharge from those
facilities to the receiving water S.
-------
Fedeewi Regisler I VoL 59. No. 144 1 Thursday. J&y 26, 1594 1 Notices
38469
Signed this -__da,d________ A. Efllueat fJniicetf end Mur. wn3 each outfafi elYhjent from wa I jt cu1
I vuI A. Pierre Disestor. W Meeagemes* Requiiemesds - facilities to receiving w J. . 4 ...t .4 iii
Division. Eevbeaenenal Th cflen Aseecy. 1. During the period beginning effective - fl A.
Ilegion 1) k M.c date and laatieig tinough expirettea. the
Part i r d to discks,ge fruit be
.
E atet
Monitoring veqiaieme
‘
Avg. mouthip
S
pjei . daity’
.
p 2 Ire.
quency
Seniple type
.
FIow(MGD) -
TSS4mg I ._
Selileable SaNds 4i Il) ..
pH ._.._.___ ._.
Aluminum(n i 4) .
LC5O&G-NOEC 3
Chlorine Pa iI4uai uqO .
Seenoae&I.i..__-_.__
30
.1 .
Seenote&t l
50
1eek .
lIwee i t —
—
.
1ai 4.
Deity
D ya mia, -
.
GiE.
Grab.
0.2 ._
See nets A.1 g . _..._
See nets sU .__ ..
Seeno seA.lh ._....
SeeneteA.1 k ..__. .
See note A.1 g
See note A.? j
Seermte&tl i...._____
See note A.1 k .._..._.......
‘State cevbbcalian requweme.t
2 Sweples shell be taken or*y when dtarging. ______
3LC-60 Ow no. cerma . ‘of efiluent in a sateple itus canes In. .l1 y to 50% of Ow last poptiation at a specthc itsie o’ ervason. P40
Observed Chrome Elect Caice en C-NOEC) at the highest eencer n ef ef ie.1 to which organisms are exposed m a ise.cyde or per-
bal bfe-cyde teat which canes no adverse sliest on growth, swvival and reproduction.
4 Test only it chlorination is used hi the process.
Cu,i.iuan,.cila of Mam sate ely.
b. The discharge shell
objectionable disco1om of the u i.avtng
waters.
C. Them shall bean discharged e4 g
solids or visable foam. The discharge shall be
adequately treated to Insure that the surface
water Ies free from pcllubeib in
cencentratins or combinations that settle to
form harmful deposits. bat as foam. debris.
scum or other visible pollutants. It shall be
adequately treated to iomue that the surface
waters remain free from poflutants which
produce odor. uiior, taste or tnsbidfty is the
receiving water which is not naturally
occuring and would d 1 it unsuitable for
its designated use.
d. The effluent limitations ate based on the
state water quality standerd and are cerdfled
bythestatee. -
e. Samples taken in compliance with the
monitoring requiraments specified above
shaH be taken at the point of discharge.
L All discharges as designated in lB shall
pass through a settling pond for 24 howe
minuimmi detention time or other approved
ueataient ay t L and meet the effluent
limitations In Pail 1.1.a. prior to 4i.rh vge to
waters of the sues.
& pH. Massachusetts.
The pH of the em . olll be’
than nor greater than the age 8tvss far the
receiving water classifications. unless these
values are exceeded due to natural
The following table specifies ranges for
Massaeh11 cPtt
Qsaton
Range
B .
C
.4.5-4.3
8.5-9.0
8.5-8.5
6.5-9 .0
SB
SC
Maine
The pH range in both freshwater and
saltwater is 8.0 to £5 en. Unless establishes
on a case-bv cese basis my Stale Poilcyl.
New Hampshire -
The pH of the effluent shall ant be less
than 6.5 standard anus lmu i rpeslar than
a.o it y e values me
e’tw ,.d ,d due
h. Ose th. e iiifled anus toxicity
sere ngtest ll be p..L ed W the
perinittee within aedape the
date of this esa1 NPD permit ( the grab
sample will be taken dining na... ,J facility
operation. The Cerio.dapbaio dales for fresh
wateir and see.u,duie formerhie water shall
beusedastestorganisminthelest. A copy
of the test procedure and detailed proeoooi
will be provided upon request from EPA.
Region I. The results of the diroalc bsclogkal
test (C-NOBC and U O) will be fu , d d
to State and EPA wIthin 30 days after the
completion of all tests.
I. New
Hampshire will here a daily thud
of 1.0 mgd. The state of Malnewill here a
maxirmun daily limit of 0.15 mgd.
j. For the states of M =rhusetts and New
Hampshire report only. Per the state a! Maine
the m. uzu daily limit of Atmutnimi w*fl
be 5.OmgIl.
N. P the states of Massadrasens and New
Hampshire report only. Foritte state of Maine
the mamma daily limit of dilorine residual
will be 1.0 mgi !.
5. Monstornmg and Repomng
1. ReportIng
Maine. Massa husetts and New Hampshire
Monitoring results obtained during the
prevIous 6 uion shall be sumnmerteed for
each quarter and reported on separate
Discharge Monitoring Ripest Pct,nfs)
poili. _ kod no later than the 15th day of the
month following thecompletad reporting
period. The reports am due on the 15th days
of January and July. The first report may
Include less thanO months Informanon.
Signed copies of thee.. sad all other
reposes required herein, shall be submitted to
- the Director and the State at the following
addre asfoflowr
a. EPA shall Teceivemipy of elireixats
required L. .... : NPDES Operations
Section. Water Compliance Branch Water
Mana v .iwut Divislen. Erivitomnental
Protection Agency. Post Office Box 8121.
Boston. MA 02114.
b. Massachusetts Division of Water
PoilutioaCo rxioL
Ill The Regional offices wherein the
discba oenws. shall receive a copy of all
reports required herein:
Massachusetts Depamnent of Environmental
Protection. Massachusetts Division of
Water PoUntion Connol,Westam Regional
Office. 436 DwIght St.. Suite 402.
Springfield. MA 01101
Massachusetts Department of EuvI, ,..nieotal
Prot. .ctI . . Massachusetts Division of
Water PollutianConani, So e.atesn
Regional Office. 20 Riw de Deive
Lakeville, MA 02346
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection asu .-husatis Division of Waler
Pollution Control. Noith am Reg al
office. I D Way. Wobum. MA -
01801
Massachusetts Department ofEnvironmerital
estion. Maseadiumsetta Division of
Water Pollution Control. Central Regional
Office. 75 Grove Street.
Massachusetts 01405
(2) TheCentral Boston O1&e shall receive
all notifications reports other than the DMR,
required by this permit shall be submitted to
the States at Memediesette of
Environmental Piotecikin . Massachusetts
Division of Weter PollutIon Canto! 7th
Floor. I Winter Street, Boston, MA 02108.
c. Maine Dep. 1 L .t dEn L . tal
Protection. Signed copies of all -repests
required by this ft shall be seat to the
State of Maine Department of Euvlrownental
Protection. Operation and Maintenance
Division. State House. Station 17. Augusta.
ME 04333.
-------
38470
Federal Register I VoL 59. No. 144 F Thursday, Tuly 2L 1994 / NotIces
d. New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services. . . -
SIgned copies of all reports required by
this permit shall be seat to the State at New
Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services, Water Supply and Pollution Control
Division. Permits and Compliance Section;
P.O. Box 95. Concord. New Haxnpshrie
03302-0095. —
C Additional General Permit Conditions
1. Notification Requirements -
a. Written notification of commencement
of operations Including the legal names and
addresses of the owners and operator and the
locations, number and type of facilities and!
or operations covered shall be submitted.
(1) For existing discharges as soon as
possible after the effective date of this permit.
by operators whose facilities and/or
operations are discharging into the general
permit area on the effective date of the
permit; or
(2) For new or substantially inaeased
discharges 20 days prior to commencement
of the discharge by operators whose facilities
and/or operations commence discharge
subsequent to the effective date of this
permit.
b. Operators of facilities and/or operations
within the general permits arm who fail to
notify the Director of their intent to be
covered by this general permit and obtain
written authorization of coverage are not
authorized under this general permit to
discharge from those facilities into the named
receiving waters.
2. TerminatIon of Operations -
Operators of facilities and/or operators
authorized under this permit shall notify the
Director upon the termination of discharges.
3. Renotification -
Upon reissuance of a new general permit.
the permittee is required to notify the
Director of his intent to be covered by the
new general permit.
4. When the Director May Require
Application for an Individual NPDES Permit
Any interested person may petition the
Director to take such action. Instances whire
en individual permit may be requited
include the followingi
(lIThe discharge(s) is a significant
contribut rof pollutiom
(2) The discharger is not in compliance
with the conditions of this permit;
(3)Achangeha.oecun ,dlnthe -
availability of the deinonmated technology
of practices for the control or abatement of
pollutants applicabl, to the point souzzet
(4) Effluent lImitation guideline. are
promulgated for point sources covered by
this permit;
(5) A Water QualIty M8nagsment Plan
containing requirements applicable to such
point source Is approved; or
(6) The point source(s) covered by this
permit no longert
(a) Involves the same volume or
substantially similar types of operations
(b) Discharges the same type of wastes:
(ci Requires the same effluent limitations
or operating conditionn
(dl Requires the same or similar monitoring
and
(e) In the opinion of the DIrector is more
appropriately controlled under a general
permit than under an individual NPDES
permit -
5. The Director may require an individual
permit only if the permittee authorized by
the general permit has been notified in
writing that an individual permit is required.
and has been given a brief explanation of the
reasons for this decision.
6. When an Individual NPDES Permit is
issued to an operator otherwise subject to
this general permit, the applicability of this
permit to that owner or operator Is
automatically terminated on the effective
date of the individual permiL
Appendix B: Past I I. General Requirements
fez ill EPA, Region 1. General NPDES
Permits
Section A. General Requirements
1. Duty to Corn ply see 40 R 122.41(a).
2. Permit Actions see 40 Q ’R 122.41(0.
3. Duty to Provide Information see 40 CPR
122.41(h).
4. Reopener aouse.
The Regional Administrator reserves the
right to make appropriate revisions t this
permit in order to establish any appropriate
effluent lImitations, schedules of compliance.
or other provisions which may be authorized
under the CWA in order to bring all
discharges into compliance with the CWA.
5. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability.
Nothing in this permit shall be construed
to preclude the institution of any legal action
or relieve the permittee from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to
which the permittee is or may be subject
under SectIon 311 of the CWA. or Section
106 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of
1980 ( RCLA).
6. Property Rights see 40 CFR 122.41( 5).
7. Conf hientialily of Information.
a. In accordance with 40 CFR part 2. any
information submitted to EPA pursuant to
these ingulations may be claimed as
confidential by the submitter. Any such
claim must be asserted at the time of
submission in the manner presoribed on the
application Form or Instructions or. in the
case of other submissions, by stamping the
words “confidential business information”
on eech page contaIning such information. If
no daim is made at the time of submission.
EPA may make the information available to
the public without further notice. if a claim
Is asserted, the information will be treated in
accordance with the procedures in 40 CFR
Part 2 (PublIc Information).
b. Cairns of confidentiality for the
following information will be denied:
(I) The name and address of any permit
applicant or permittee:
(2) Permit applications, permits, and
effluent date as defined in 40 CFR
2.302(a)(2).
c. information required by NPDES
application forms provided by the Regional
Administrator under 5122.21 may not be
claimed confidentiaL ‘This includes
information submitted on the forms
themselves and any attachments used to
supply information required by the forms.
8. DutytoReopplysee40 R 122.41(b).
9. Right of Appeal.
Within thirty (30) day. of receipt of not.
of a final permit decision, any interested
person. including the peunittee. may submit
a request to the Regional Administrator for an
Evidentiary Heating under subpart E. or a
Non’Adversazy Panel Hearing under subpart
F. of 40 R part 124. to reconsider or
contest that decision. The request For a
hearing must conform to the requirements of
4OCFR 124.74.
10. Slate Authorities.
Nothing in part 122, 123. or 124 precludes
move stringent State regulation of any activity
covered by these regulations. whether or not
under an approved State program. -
11. Other Laws. —
The issuance of a permit does not
authorize any inlury to persons or prooerty
or Invasion of other private rights. nor does
it relieve the permittee of its obligation to
comply with any other applicable Federal.
State. and local laws and regulations.
Section 8. Operation and Maintenance of
Pollution Controls
1. Proper Operation and Maintenance see
40 CFR 122.41 (e).
2. Need to Halt or Reduce Not a Defense
see4OCFR 122.41 (ci.
3. Dutyto Mitigate see 4OCFR 122 41(d).
4. 8 ypass see 40 R 122.41 (in).
5. Upset see 40 C7R 122.41 (n).
Section C Monitoring and Records
1. Monitóing and Records see 40 CFR
122.41 (ft.
2. Inspection and Entry see 40 ‘R 122.41
(ft.
Section 0. Repàrtiag Requirements
1. Reporting Requirements see 40 CPR
122.41 (I). -
2. Signatory Requirement see 40 R
122.4! (k).
3. Availability of Reports. -
Except for data determined to be
confidential under Paragraph A.7. above, all
reports prepared in accordance with the
terms of this permit shall be available for
public inspection at the offices of the State
water pollution control agency and the
Regional Administrator. As required by the
CWA. effluent data shall not be considered
confidential. Knowingly making any false -
statement on any such report may result in
the Imposition of criminal penalties as -
provided for in Section 309 of the CWA.
Section £ Other Conditions
1. Definitions for purposes of this permit
tie as followar
Administrator means the Administrator of
the United States Environmental Protection
Agency. or an authorized representative.
Applicable standards and limitations
means all State. interstate, and Federal
standards and limitations to which a
“discharge” or a related activity is subject to.
including water quality standards, standards
of performance. toxic effluent standards or
prohibitions. “best management practices.”
and pretreatment standards under sections
301.302. 303. 304. 306, 307. 308. 403.and
405 of CWA.
Application means the EPA standard
national forms for applying for a permit.
-------
i Iudkngaij 6di los. re srn ns or
______ --
appwesd * •in • uppwwod
S .” u na, aRiroved
modlficetions or revisions. -
- Averoge. The arithmetic in an of values
taken at the h I.—’y mç ilnsl for
pammatar over the rgpmri pmtod_. Per tutal
aedMr l the avmegeehaU ho
the goomeoic mean.
Avezqge monthly discharge limitation
means the highest 1 1L,w.hle aveage of
dailydindswgaa a calender mouth.
celculated as the stun of all daily dl.thn ve
measured during a calendar month divuled
by the number of d 1y J1 I w J
during that month.
Average weekly tha..Jtu liuub4ion
the highest allowable v vofdiily
diturg . ’ovesa a. ’wask.I . . e,d
as the sian atoll thaly ’ ”’ges messized
during a coland weekdlvided byths
numltsr of daily 4lscbazges measured during
that week.
Bm2Mana nentPrcc?Jces (BMPs)roeans
schedules of ictl -uil , prohihitioes of
preieir . mai nca procedures, and other
m nagP Ient p’- ’- . ta prevent ori ice
the pollution of “milan of the Vested
States.” UMPa also 1 rJu Dsa enL
requirements. opemdtg procedures, and
pzw1l , ..z I plant site emef, spillage
or leaks, ehidgaiw dupui.l.ar
— born . .ol —.ge . __
raso -by ed sminaliond t
pi.eir ii1. ‘ ‘5w nlaca IBPT). Best AvA4t tI.
T, tmeet I B M) or other approprinte
standard bred on an evaluation of the
available k,dL.Ju to ieva a
— - .4 _ g- .
r inip.dsi.Ser, 1._A
of amrrnrn of ‘eight gmbnsmples oufleamd
at equal Intervals durrng.a 24-hour period or
lesser p ..d as specmed lathe section on
Monitoring end B . . , itlag ) and cerobmed
puop’-’ti-u.& to 8cw. era sample -
pis rtio.alIy to 4mw
over time ind,
Continuous Discharge means a “discharge”
which access without inter pfi
tluougbout the operathug hours of the faciii
excepr forrn
pru a changes. ersuunihe
OVA or “The Ad means the Clean Water
Act U seas she Pedesel Water
Pollution Control Act or Fedeesi Wat
Polludan Control Act ?.‘ “. “dments of 1972)
Public law —sg usmeended by Public
Law 95-217, Pu.b& Law , Public Law
95-463 and Pubbc Law S7-4 17: 23 USC
1251 at mq.
D aily Discharge mesas the discharge of a
pollutant measured during a calenda, day or
any 24-hour period that reasonably
repr ts the calendar day for purposes of
sampling , For pollutants with limitations
CAJM J lD uniteatmass. the daily
discharge Is I .bted as the total urass of
the po hi t di L d over the day. For
pollutants with limitations expressed in
other units of. -wuwents, the daily
discharge is calculated as the average
measwementd the pollutant over the day.
fl”- - “ she parson authorized in
cign TJ pennits by EPA and/or the State.
thllllngr igwfflbe.. ’.i. .A anew
discharger” only Iorth dasudon of its
discharge in an ares oF 1tl .1 mecern .
New souzor means any “tg suuouue.
cillty, or Instailitian which share is or
may be a “discharge ol pefl ” '”a ” the
construction of which comi cch
La) Ator promulgation of ‘ “ “ of
perfOrmance under Section 306 OIQVA
which are apr’ - ” ” ' to such.
(b) After proposal of . f* a;m .1 . of
performance in accordance with Section 306
of CWA which are appIw hla2osach
but only if he promulgated in
accordance with Section 1 withIn t29 days
of their proposal.
NPDES mesas
Discharge flniingtlnn Siutarn.”
Non-Contact f i 1i Wojeris water used
to reduce temperesrere which does not come
in direct ennt w any rere material.
intermediate p ” 1 ”-’_.a waste p” or
finished pmdi.rs
Owner or opemtor ns the monsior -
opeesior of any “facility oractitrily” aib ect
to regulation under the NPDES pr us.
Permit means an euthnr 1 . Horns., or
equivalent control document issued by EPA
oran “appmvedState. ”
Person “ . an asdividaal,
parunerahip. ourparniran. munidpality. State
or Federal agency, or an agent or employee
thereof.
Peint satire means any AI ,i 1 )gs,
confined, and ‘ 4 ” ” ccnuep_am, meluding
but not l1rnit
tunnel. condeL wafl, discrete finsise .
container, fl1og stwh, ‘ - “‘ oted gnim
feeding operation, vessel, or other floating
craft, from which polluzantsa,aor rosy be
discharged. This aton does not Include
return flows from irrigated açicubiuc.
Federal Regjsfnr I Vol. 59. No. 144 / Thutaday. Jitly 28. 1994 /Nntw’oe
38471
— — v— f l .———. —— — —
Dlhorgeloaitngfeport p (hi That did iot ca the “ “ '‘r
meaas the A s dard national foon. - of poflutante” at a perticalar site’ prIor so
hededing any ent additions. August 13, 197t
revisions, or modlbcations, the teporting - tc) Which Is not a “neiw amirrn”
of seffimmltoring results by pexmittees . (di Which has never wsd a finally
DMRsnmet beosed by &ates ’ as efhgllqe NPfl puresti for d I rejs at that
- well as by EPA . EPA will espp)y DivOts to site”.
any appwved State upon request. 1 EPA This definition includes an “Indirect
national fosmsu ybemodiSed testibgtttjte discharger” which ng ’
the State Agency name. sddrese, logo , and Into waiazs of the United States” abet
other similar L, uUoa , as a .uyi late, La August 13, 1979. It also Includes any existing
place of EPA’S. - mobile point soume lather thanan
Dlscha sgeefepolIu r n . ... o r ”’ ” I oil and
(a) Any addition of any “pollutanr or or a ’ ” 1 oil aJt
combination of pollutants to of the drllflng rig) such ma . . &wi p e ing zig.
United Stetas” front any “ point seafood 4 — ug veasal.or aggregate plant.
4b5 Any addition of any , J)..t.ud or that hirgi s .giagaj a “tote” far which
combination c(pn4hs its te the . . ,.L... . ofthe It does not haven permit and anv ’ ’ ”-
“contiguous zone” or the omen ham any oi’oo atul w.)iO . all end gas a lozatwy
point somor er then a vemel or other .drilflng rig or uessal mobile mined gas
Iloetiag arab which is g esedas a means’ drifling rig that “'°
• ofamiapostadon . • the Macharp of p. fln ..nta aflarAugrnt 13,
This definition iadt.J , additions of 1971. ate “site” under ap ” ”” 4 ”g
pollutants Into . . of the United States Imisdlmiait far which It Ii not massed by an
from: starfumyajioff which is , nflecamd ‘ indiVidUal er’genanl p ”’ ” and sihich is
channelled by men: d iarges tionu ‘ . heeled In an ereadoa., i 4 b rthe
pipes, a save . arcther conveyances Regional M im.t!aior iii the “'‘ola
by a State, municipality. orotbeFpersoia - permit tahe,eo ereadl ’n ’ug ’r l
which thi nut lead to a tiant t wutku mid tIA 1 m m 3 whether an is
discharges through pipes. sawera , or -. an area o1bioIoglt I concern, the Pqi”-
laming ime meately Adfl tlnistr 5tor shall nntiAia ’ the ‘ -‘
trea ent works, Pl ’ 4 intO 0 ’R 12A “ 2)1hesugh
This term does nut aatdlii,ai Of (10L
pollutants by any i-i . ” An nff.1 n. or r ta) mt .l.fla.aplominry
Effluent limitation ‘ “- . any lujinIdlu . 1rom tin or coastal mobile dsuerlàmeantsl
imposed by the D4 oa . -‘. -c
dlschazgea . ._ iL _ 0 f ____
“pollutants” which are “d lschalled” hoes _____
“point so Iaau ’ h ‘ ..Ofthe1J ed
States.” the waters of the “centiçumsasna.” ____
or the ocean .
Effluent limit ot gz ii6tM. .e ______
regulation pubbmed by the Admin ear
under Section 304(b) of CWA to adopt os ______
revise “effluent l. , t _ s .n,i. ” -
EPA meanstha Umted Slates
‘Enwnommitta) Pj,a _ uI’na Agency. - ______ _____
Gmb Sample—An individual mmple _____
collected in a period uf than IS minutes.
Hazard oiar Sub ance means any aubstance
designated under 40U ’R Part US pursuant ____
toSection 311 of CWA. -
M ,. rn ,n,. . Iydischo age limitation ______
means the highest allowable “daily
discharge.” _
Municipality means a city, town , borough.
county, perIsh, district. mmciatian, or other ______
public body aeated by of under State law ____
end having Jurisdiction over disposal or
sewage. feidustnf a wastes, or other wastes, es
an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribe _______
organization, or a designated and approved
menegemeat agency under-, ,.cuon 208 of
CWA. ___ ____
National Pellutont t xMage Fiamnation
System means the natiosrel Pw for
issuing, modifying, revoking and raissiting.
terrnluatthg, monitoring and enforcing
permits. and imposing and enforcing
re ut , under sections ____ ______
307.482,316. mid 405 of CWA. The tame
Incl udes an “approved program.”
New thu.. .1iw r esanst any tart iding,
structure, facility, or installation:
(a) From which them isor may boa
“discharge of pollutants”;
-------
38472
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 144 / Thursday, July 28, 1994 t Notices
Fb i mean idredged spoiL soild waste,
Incinerator residue. ifiter backwash, sewage.
garbage. to e e ubadge. immaldous. ch iri I
wastes. biological materials, radioactive
materials ( emept th u . . regulated under the
Atomic Energr Act of 1954. as amended (42
U.S.C. 2011 at seq)). heat. wrecked or
discarded equipment. rock, sand, cellar diii
and industrial. municipal. and agricultural
waste discharged into water. It does not
mean:
(a) Sewage from vessels; or
(b) Water. gas. or other material which is
intected into a well to facilitate production of
oil or gas. or water derived In association
with oil and gas production and disposed of
in a well, lithe well used either to facilitate
production or for disposal purpose. is
approved by authority of the State in which
the well is Imated. and lithe State
determines that the Injection or disposal will
not result in the degradation of ground or
surface water resources.
Primary industry category means any
industry category listed lathe NRDC
settlement agreement (Natural Resources
Defense Council et c i. v. Train. SE.R.C. 2120
(D.D.C. 19761. modIfied 12 E.R.C. 1833
(D.D.C. 1979fl; also listed in appendIx A of
40 part 122.
Process wasfawnter means any water
which. during manufacturing or processing.
comes into direct contact with or results from
the production or use of any raw material.
Intermediate product. finished product.
byproduct. or waste product.
Regional Adminisbetortneans the -
Regional Administrator, EPA. Region I.
Boston. M ” thusetts.
State means any of the SO States, the
District of Columbia. Guam. the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. the Virgin
Islands. American Samoa. the Trust Terntory
of the Pacific Islands.
Secondary Industry Categor/ means any
industry category which is not a “primary
industry category.”
Toxic pollutant means any pollutant listed
as toxic in appendix D of 40 O’R past 122.
under Section 30?(aXl) of CWA.
Uncontaminated storm wafer is
precipitation to which no pollutants have
been added and has not come into direct
contact with any raw material. intermediate
product. waste product or finished product
Walan of the United States meanei
(a) All waters which are currently used.
were used lathe past, or may be susceptible
to use In Lat tc6 or flirelgu commerce.
including all waters which are subject to the
ebbaedfiowefthetldor
(b) All interstate waters. Including
interstate “wetlands.”
(C) AU other waters such as intrastate lakes,
rivers, streams (Including Intermittent
streams), mudflata, sandilats. “wetlands.”
sloughs. prairie potholes. wet meadows.
playa takes, or natural ponds the use.
degradation, or destruction of which would
affect or could affect Interstate or foreign
commerce Including any such waters:
(1) Which are or could be used by
interstate or foreiga travelers for recreational
or other purposes;
(2) From which fish or shellfish are or
could be taken and sold in interstate or
foreign commerce; or
(3) Which am user 1 or could be used for
industrial purposes by industries in interstate
commerce
(dl All lmpo indments of waters otherwise
defined as waters of the United States under
thi, definition;
(e) Tributaries of waters identified in
paragraphs (a) (d) of this definition;
(I) The territorial sea and
(8) “Wetlands” adjacent to waters (other
than waters that are themselves wetlands)
Identified in paragraphs (a l-U) of this
definition.
Whole Effluent Toricrty(WE’Tl means the
aggregate toxic e ct of an effluent measured
directly by a toxicity test. (See abbreviations
Section. following, for additional
InformatIon).
Wetlands means those areas that are
Inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient
to support. and that under normal ‘
circumstances do support. a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted ibr life in
saturated soil condition.. Wetland. generally
include swamps, marshes. bogs, and similar
areas.
2. Abbreviations when used In this permit
are defined below:
cu Mlday or M3/day- -cubic meters per
day
mgfl—rnilligrams per liter
ug/l—miaograms per titer
lbs/day—pounds per day -
kglday—kilograms per day
Temp ‘C—temperature in degrees -
Centigrade -
Temp ‘F—temperature in degrees
Fahrenheit -
Turb.—turbidlty measured by the
Nephelometric Method (NW)
pH—a measure of the hydrogen ion
concentration
S—cublc feet per second
MCD—million gallons per day
Oil & Grease—Freon extractable material
ml/l—rnilliliteds) par liter
Clr-4otal residual chlorine
(FR Doc. 94—18333 Filed 7—27—94: 8:45 amj
mu ea coos ar . .
(OPPTS-44812; FRL-4903-4J
TSCA Chemical Testing; Receipt of
Test Oats -
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: This notice announces the
receipt of test data on isopropanol (CAS
No. 67—63-0) and 1,2,4.
trichlorobenzene (CAS No. 120-82—i)
submitted pursuant to a final test rule
under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). Publication of this notice is in
compliance with section 4(d) of TSCA.
FOR FURTHER INFOItMATION CONTACT:
Susan B. Hazen. Director.
Environmental Assistance Division
(7408), Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, Rm. E—5438,.401 M SI, SW..
Washington. DC 20460. (202) 554—1404.
TDD (202) 554 g 0551 .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
4(d) of TSCA requires EPA to publish a
notice in the Federal Register reporting
the receipt of test data submitted
pursuant to test rules promulgated
under section 4(a) within 15 days after
it is received. -
L Test Data Submissions -
Test data for isopropanol were
submitted by the Chemical
Manufacturers Association Isopropanol
Panel on behalf of the test sponsors and
pursuant to a test rule at 40 CFR
799.2325. They were received by EPA
on June 17, 1994. The submission
describes a vapor inhaLation
oncogenicity study in fischer 344 rats.
This chemical is used as a solvent in
consumer products and industrial
products and’procedures. -
Test data for 1.2.4-trichlorobenzene -
were submitted by the Chemical.
Manufacturers Association on behalf of
the test sponsor and pursuant to a test
rule at 40 ‘R 799.1053. They were
received by EPA on June 23. 1994. The
submissions describe 104-week dietary
cercinogenicity studies with rats and
mice. This chemical Is used in organic
Intermediates, solvents, dye carriers. -
transformers, and dielectric fluids.
EPA has initiated its review and
evaluation process for these data
submissions. At this time, the Agency is
unable to provide any determination as
to the completeness of the submissions.
I L Public Record
EPA has established a public record
- for this TSCA section 4(d) receipt of
data notice (docket number OPPTS—
44612). This record includes copies of
-all studies reported in this notice. The
record Is available for inspection from
12 noon to 4p.m.. Monday through
Friday ’. except legal holidays, in the
- TSCA Public Docket Office, Rm. B-GO?
Northeast Mall. 401 M St., SW..
— Washington, DC 20460.
Authority 15 U.S.C 2603.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection. Test data.
Dated: July 18. 1994.
Oaarles hi. Auer,
Director. Chemical Central Division, Office
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
FR Doc. 94—18448 Filed 7—27—94; 8:45 am)
eiu.i o cool sase-ee-c
-------
Federal Register I Vol . 59, No. 140 1 Friday, July 22, 1994 I Notices
37495
The new TSD provides an expLanation
of the technical support for WET testing
and gives detailed guidance on
development of water quality-based
permit limitations for WET and toxic
pollutants.
Based upon its accumulated
expenence in administering the WET
control program to date. A decided to
develop a new WET control policy to
supplement existing policy. The new
policy consists of eight policy
statements, explanations of each policy
statement, and appendices containing
background materials. In part, the policy
restates EPA ’s strong continuing
commitment to existing Clean Water Act
provisions and the regulatory
requirements at40 CFR 122.44(dlll)
governing the control of WET for the
protection of aquatic life. It also
addresses some specific areas where
questions have arisen regarding the
implementation of these requirements.
The text of the eight statements of
policy is provided below.
1. Basis for WET Controls
The permitting authority should
evaluate WET water quality aiteiia
attainment for acute WET at the edge of
the acute mixing mite and for chronic
WET at the edge of the chronic mixing
zone except where the State has
different requirements for evaluating
WET criteria.’ The permitting authority
will develop WET effluent limitations
based upon the more stringent of the
acute or chronic criterion applied at the
edge of the respective mixing zone, or.
alternatively, on both.
2. Evaluation of Dischargei’s for
Reasonable Potential
At a minimum, the permitting
authority should review all major
dischargers for reasonable potential to
cause or contribute to exceedance of
WET water quality criteria.
3. Evaluating Reasonable Petenlial
The permitting authority will
t.onsider available WET testing data and
other information in evaluating whether
a discharger has reasonable potential to
t.ause or contribute to exceedance of
WET water quality criteria.
4. Consequences of Establishing’
Reasonable Potential
Upon finding reasonable potential to
cause or contribute to exceedance of
WET water quality criteria. the
“fhtoii4liout the poI cy. the tens “WET nat.,
, a.itiIy criteria” refers to S W. numeric water
. u.iJityaIisna for WET and Sure uarrau,. water
quality criteria for baldly such “no ina In
‘n swl .‘ nurns” in State water quality elendevds
permitting authority will impose
effluent limitations to control WET.
S. Whole Effluent Toxicity Monitoring
Where appropriate, the permitting
authority should impose WET
monitoring conditions upon dischargers
that do not have effluent limitations to
control W T.
B. Comphance Schedules in NPDES
Permits
Where allowed under State and
federal law. NPDES permits may
contain schedules for compliance with
WET effluent limitations.
7. Whole Effluent Toxicity Controls and
the Pollutants Ammonia and Chlorine
The requirements of the water quality
permitting regulations apply without
regard to the pollutant(s) that may be
causing toxicity, including ammonia
and chlorine.
8. Whole Effluent Toxicity Controls and
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs) -
‘The requirements of the water quality
permitting regulations apply to all
dischargers. including POTWs,
Dateé July 14, 1994.
Robert rdasepe.
Asszston)Administmtor for Water.
IFR Doc. 94—17918 Filed 7—21—94; 8:45 aml
BLUISO COO! 6560-ia-P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATiONS
COMMISSION
Public Infoçnation Collections
Approved by Office of Management
and Budget
The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) has received Office
of Management and Budget (0MB)
approval for the following public
information collections pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
Public Law 98—511. For further
information contact Shoko B. Hair.
Federal Communications Commission.
(202) 418—1370.
Federal Communications Commission
0MB Control No.: 3060-0383
Title: Satellite Communications—Part
25
Expiration Date: 05131197
Estimated Annual Burden: 10,996 total
hours: 4 hours per response.
Description: Earth and space station
applicants are required to submit
information as specified in 47 G’R
part 25 so that the Commission may
determine whether their request
should be granted. The information is
used to determine the objectives of
public interest, convenience and
necessity are being met in accordance
with 47 U.S.C. 309.
0MB Control l*,: 3060-0343
Title: Qualifications of Domestic
Satellite Space Station Licensees-
Section 25.140
Expiration Date: 05/31/97
Estimated Annual Burden: 25,000 total
hours 1000 hours per response.
Description: Domestic fixed-satellite
station applicants must submit
information as required by 47 Q R
25.140. To enable the Commission to
determine whether theapplicants are
financially, technically end legally
qualified to construct. launch and
operate their proposed systems and
have justified the need for expansion
satellites, applicants are required to
submit specified documentation,
Federal Coinmunicauons Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Seaetaiy.
IFR Dec. 94—17849 Filed 7—21—04; &4 5 eml
Betass COOS oia.es-u
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Emigrant Bancorp, Inc., et al.;
Formations of; Acquisitions by; and
Mergers of Bank Holding Companies
The companies listed in this itotice
have applied for the Board’s approval
under section 3 of the Bank Holding
Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1842) and §
225.14 of the Board’s Regulation Y ( 1Z
CFR 225.14) to become a bank holding
company or to acquire a bank or’ bank
holding company. The factors that are
considered in acting on the applications
are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act
(12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
Each application is available for
immediate inspection at the Federal
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the
application has been accepted for
processing. ii will also be available for
inspection at the offices of the Board of
Governors. Interested persons may
express their views in writing to the
Reserve Bank or to the offices of the
Board of Governors. Any comment on
an application that requests a hearing
must include a statement of why a
written presentation would not suffice
in lieu of a hearing, identifying
specifica lIy any questions of fact that
are in dispute and summarizing the
evidence that whuld be presented at a
hearing.
Unless otherwise noted, comments
regarding each of these applications
must be received not later than August
16, 1994.
-------
F
37494
Federal Regialer / VoL 59, No. 140 / FrIday, July 22. 1994 I Notices
Nonconfidential Information Center
(NCIC). NEM—B607 at the above address
between 12 noon and 4 p.m.. Monday
through Friday. excluding legal
holidays.
v e.—es
Manufacturer. Enterprise Coatings
Company.
Chemical. (C) Aliphatic dilsocyanate
polymer.
Use/Production. (C) Industrial textile
adhesive binder. Prod. range:
Confidential.
Y s —ei
Manufacturer. C. J. Osbom.
Corporation.
Chemical. (C) Polyurethane alkyd.
Use/Production. IS) Pigment coatings.
Prod. range: Confidential.
V Gs—M
Manufacturer. Virkler Company.
Chemical. (C) Fatty acids. tall.oil,
maleated. esters with a mixture of C,w!rs
alkyl and alkoxylated potassium salts.
Use/Production. (C) Textile fiber and
fabric processing aid. Prod. range:
Confidential.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection.
Pienianufacture notification.
Dateth July 13. 199
Frank V. Ca ar.
Acting Director. Infonnoilon Management
Division. Office of Pollution Prevention and
Tonics.
IFR Dec. 94—17913 Flied 7—21—94; 8:45 aml
G cO #
(OPPTS-00155 FRL—4868—31
Dry Cleaning Industry; Notice of
Availability of Comparison Study of
Conventional Dry CleanIng and an
Alternative Process
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability .
SUMMARY: EPA is announcing the
availability of a study entitled
“Multiprocess Wet Cleaning: A Cost and
Performance Comparison of
Conventional Dry Cleaning and an
Alternative Process. The study is the
result of a joint EPA/industry effort that
demonstrated the viability of an
alternative non-solvent “wet” cleaning
process which relies on soaps. heat.
steam and pressing to clean clothes that
are traditionally dry cleaned.
ADORWS The document is available
at a cost of $12.00 from the Government
Printing Office (GPO). 732 North Capitol
St.. NE.. Washington, DC 28401.
telephone (202) 783—3238. Ask for
document number EPA 744-R-093-004.
This document is also available from the
National Technical Information Service
(NTIS). 5258 Port Royal Road.
Springfield. VA 22161. telephone (703)
487—4650: ask for publication PB94—
108030. The cost is $27. Free copies of
the Executive Summary can be obtained
by contacting EPA’s Pollution
Prevention Information Clearinghouse
(PP!C). Environmental Protection
Agency. 40? M SI. SW.. Mail Code
3404. WashIngton. DC 20460. telephone
(202) 260—1023. Fax (202) 260—1678. A
brochure on multiprocess wet cleaning
is also available from PPIC. Ask for
document number EPA 744—5—94—001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
EPA’s Pollution Prevention Information
Clearinghouse (PPIC). Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M St.. SW.. Mail
Code 3404. Washington. DC 20460.
telephone (202) 260—1023. Fax (202)
260—1678.
SUPPlEMENTARY INFORMATiON: The
Agency’s Design for the Environment
Program within the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics formed a
partnership with the dry cleaning
industry, universities, and
environmental, labor, and consumer
groups to explore ways to reduce
exposure to perchioroethylene (PCE).
the chemical solvent used by most dry
cleaners to dean clothes. In November
and December 1992. a short.term. high
volume demonstration project was
conducted to compare the cost and
performance of the alternative non-
solvent process with traditional dry
cleaning methods that use PCE. Results
of the project indicate that the wet
cleaning process appears to be
economically competitive and
acceptable to consumers. The new wet
deaning method, which can reduce the
publics exposure to toxic dry cleaning
chemicals. may be a viable alternative
for some of the nation’s dry cleaners.
Dated: June 18. 1994.
Mark A. Greenwood,
Director. Office of Pollution. Prevention and
Tox ics.
IFR Doc. 94—17911 Filed 7—21—94. 8:45 cm i
•- coat
(OW -FRL -6017 -8J
Policy for the Development of Effluen
Umitatfons In National Pollutant
Discharge ElImination System Permits
to Control Whole Effluent Toxicity for
the Protection of Aquatic Life: Notice
of Availability
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of availability .
SUMMARY: This notice announces the
availability of a final policy document
entitled “Policy for the Development of
Effluent Limitations in National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permits to Control Whole
Effluent Toxici!y (WE’?) for the
Protection of Aquatic Life.” The
purpose of the new policy is to promote
uniform, nationwide compliance with
existing statutory and regulatory
requirements for the control of WET and
to assist permit writers in implementing
these requirements.
DATES Copies of this document are
available beginning July 22. 1994.
A00RESSE : Copies of this document can
be obtained from U.S. EPA. National
Center for Environmental Publications
and Information. P.O. Box 42419.
Cincinnati, Ohio 45242—2419
(Document Number EPA 833-B-94--
002).
FOR FURTHER INFORMAT iON CONTACT
Wendy J. Miller. Office of Water. Office
of Wastewater Management. 4203. u.s.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401
M Street. S.W., Washington. D.C. 20460.
Telephone: (202) 260—3716.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Since
1984 EPA has undertaken various
regulatory activities for the control of
WET to protect aquatic life. In 1984.
EPA published the ‘Policy for the
Development of Water Quality-Based
Permit Limitations for Toxic
Pollutants.” 49 FR 9016 (March 9,
1984). The policy discusses such issues
as integration of chemical specific and
biological permit limits: chemical.
physical. and biological testing
requirements (including WET testing
requirements); and use of data.
Iii 1989. EPA revised the regulations
governing the development of water
quality-based effluent limitations.
including those to control WET. 40 CFR
12244(d)(1). The regulations impose
specific requirements such as requiring
effluent limits where the permitting
authority finds “reasonable potential” tr’
cause an exceedance of applicable wet
quality criteria.
In 1991. EPA revised the 1985
Technical Suppon Document for tt’oter
Quality-based Tox:cs Control (TSD).
-------
36436
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 136 / Monday. July 18. 1994 / Notices
3. Health and Research Subcommittee
Meeting—August 4-3,1994
The Health and Research
Subcommittee (HRS) of the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC) will conduct a meeting on
Thursday and Friday. August 4-5 1994.
from 8a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Thursday
and from 8 a.m. to Noon on Friday at
the Albuquerque Hyatt Regency Hotel.
330 Tijeras N.W.. Albuquerque. New
Mexico 87102, (505) 842—l234. In this
meeting. the MRS intends to review the
Office of Research and Developments
(ORD) draft process description for
development of the Agency’s -
Environmental Justice research strategy
MRS will also evaluate and recommend
options on the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s overall research
priorities and science policy setting as
it relates to environmental justice. The
subcommittee will review ORD’s
research strategy and definitions. The
•meeting is open to the public and
seating will be available on a first-come
basis.
Any member of the public wishing
further information, such as proposed
agenda on the meeting, should contact
Mr. Lawrence Martin, Designated
Federal Official. Office-of Research and
Development. U.& Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M Street, SW..
Washington. DC 20460. by telephone
(202) 260—0673, Fax at (202) 260—0507.
4. Public Participation and
Accountability Subcommittee
Meeting—August 4-3,1994
The Public Participation and
Accountability Subcommittee (PPAS) of
the National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council (NEJAC) will hold its
first meeting on Thursday and Friday.
August 4—5. 1994. from 8 a.m. to 3:30
p.m. on Thursday and from Thursday
and from 8 am. to Noon on Friday at the
Albuquerque Hyatt Regency Hotel, 330
Tljeras NW.. Albuquerque, New Mexico-
87102. (505) 842—1234. In this meeting,
the PPAS Intends to find ways to
improve communications, develop trust
and Involve affected communities. To
this end, the Subcommittee will explore
the creation of business and industry.
stakeholder and other types of public/
private partnerships to address
environmental justice concerns. Finally.
PPAS will evaluate the Agency’s
strategy to use the Cecgraphic
Information System (GIS) program to
identify potential geographic areas of
environmental Justice concern, i.e.,
define potential patterns of inequity and
Insure environmental justice
accountability. The meeting is open to
the public and seating will be available
on a first-come basis.
Any member of the public wishing
further information, such as proposed
agenda on the meeting, should contact
Mr. Bob Knox. Designated Federal
Official, Office of Environmental Justice.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460. by telephone at (202) 260—6357
or 1—800—962—6215 or by Fax at (202)
260—0852.
FOR FURTHER UIFO ATI0N CONTACI’
Copies of the NEJAC Chaster are
available upon request Please contact
the Office of Environmental Justice
(3103). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M Street, SW., Washington.
DC 20460, 1—800—962—6215. For hearing
Impaired individuals or non-English
speaking attendees wishing to make
arrangements for a sign language or
foreign language interpreter, please call
or fax Kathy Ackley at (703) 934—3293
or (703) 934—9740 (fax).
Dated: July 13. 1994.
Oarim B. Gaylord,
Desigr at.dFederoJ Official. .Vat,onoi
£wfronmental)UsticeAdvz3azy CounciL
IFR D cc. 94—17382 Flied 7—15—94: 3 45 a n s i
coca use-sow
(FRL-5014-71
Approval of Maryland’s Submission of
a Substantial Program Revision to Its
Authorized National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTiON: Notice of Approval of
Maryland’s revisions to its NPDES
program: publication of EPA’s response
to public comments on Maryland’s
regulation revisions.
SUMMARY: The State of Maryland
submitted amendments to its Code of
Maryland Regulations (COMAR)
(adopted by the Secretary c f the
Environment on May 6, 19 3) to EPA for
review as a revision to the State’s
authorized NPDES program. The
submitted revisions to Maryland’s
regulations are considered tobe
substantial revisions to Maryland’s
NPDES program and can be found at
COMAR 26.08.03.07 and COMAR
26.08.04.02-i. EPA requested comments
from the public on the regulation
revisions In Federal Register notices
dated November 10, 1993 and January 3,
1994 at 58 FR 59724 and 59 FR 87,
respectively. EPA considered all public
iiim i ts In review of Maryland’s
regulation revisions. A summary of the
comments and EPA’s response can be
found below.
After careful consideration of the
regulation revisions and all public
comments. EPA has determined that the
revisions satisfy the Clean Water Act
(CWA) and minimum federal
requirements. Therefore, EPA has
approved the revisions found at
COMAR 26.08.03.07 and COMM
26.08.04.02—1. These permit regulation
revisions may now be considered
effective and may be implemented.
DATES Maryland’s regulation revisions,
COMAR 26.08.03.07 and COMAR
26.08.04.02-1. were approved by EPA
on May 6, 1994. The regulation
revisions are effective on May 6. 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATiON CONTACT:
Helene Drago, (215) 597—8242, U.S.
EPA, Region III, 3WM55, 841 Chestnut
Building. Philadelphia, PA 19107
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 6,
1993. the State of Maryland. adopted
changes to its NPDES permit program
regulations found at COMAR
26.08.03.07 and COMAR 26.08.04.02—1.
Pursuant 1040 CFR 123.62 and CWA
304 and 402, EPA reviewed the NPDES
permit program regulation for
compliance with federal regulation. The
revisions to Maryland’s regulations were
described in Federal Register notices
dated November 10, 1993 and January 3,
1994 at 58 FR 59724 and 59 FR 87.
respectively. A public notice of the
regulation revisions was also published
in the Baltimore Sun on November 12.
1993. Copies of Maryland’s regulation
revisions were available for review at
the EPA Region Ill office in
Philadelphia. PA. Copies were also
available for purchase. As part of the
public comment period. EPA provided
the opportunity for a public hearing,
However, there were no requests for a
public hearing. All comments or
objections received by EPA Region II]
were considered by EPA in Its review of
the NPDES regulation revisions. A list of
persons who provided comment are
provided below. A summary of the
comments and EPA’s response can be
found below.
After careful consideration of the
regulation revisions, all public
comment. and supplemental
information submitted by Maryland
Department of the Environment (MOE)
in letters dated June 1. 1993. February
15. 1994 arid March 23. 1994, EPA has
determined that the substantial
revisions to the Maryland’s NPDES
regulations found at COMAR
26.08.03.07 and COMM 26.08.04.02—I
meet the requirements of the CWA and
federal regulations. Therefore. EPA has
approved the regulation revisions on
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 136 I Monday. July 18. 1994 F Notices
36437
May 6. 1994. EPA’s approval letter.
dated May 6. 1994. to David A. C.
Carroll. Secretary of MDE provides a
Full explanation of EPA’s grounds for
approval. These permit regulation
revisions may now be considered
effective and may be implemented.
Response Summary to Public
Comments
Comment: EPA should not disapprove
any part of the NPDES regulations since
disapproval will jeopardize the
agreement reached by a group of
plaintiffs. MDE and the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation.
EPA’s response: EPA understands that
MDE. the Chesapeake Bay Foundation
and a large group of litigants underwent
a lengthy and complex negotiation to
reach the agreement that Is reflected in
the revisions to Maryland’s NPDES
program.
However. EPA is obligated under the
OVA and federal regulations to review
any substantial revisions to a State’s
NPDES regulations to ensure that the
revisions meet mlniynum federal
requirements. It Is not reasonable for
any party to request that EPA forgo its
legal duty to carefully review the
regulation revisions. EPA must have the
freedom to review, and If necessary
disapprove, any part of the regulations
regardless of whether that disapproval
will impact a lawsuit settlement.
Comment: Maryland’s Intake credit
regulation is similar If not more
restrictive than that proposed in the
Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative
(GLWQI) and therefore should be
approved.
EPA’s response: EPA agrees with the
commentor that Maryland’s intake
credit regulation appears to be cim iar to
EPA’s preferred option found In the
proposed GLWQL The implementation
of the intake credit regulation should
assure that any discharger that meets the
requirements of the regulation has no
reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to an exceedance of an
applicable numerin or narrative water
quality standard. EPA finds the intake
credit provisions in Maryland’s
regulations acceptable at this time with
the understanding that changes may be
appropriate once the GLWQI is
finalized.
Comment Maryland’s regulations
provide adequate provisions for whole
effluent toxicity (WET) and
consistent with federal law and
regulations.
EPA’s response: Under 40 CFR
122.44(d)(1). permitting authorities
must establish whole effluent toxicity or
chemical-specific effluent limitations In
‘gPDES permits where a discharge
causes. has the reasonable potential to
cause, or contributes to an exceedance
of a numeric or narrative water quality
standard. Because Maryland’s regulation
does not require WET limits where
standards violations are possible,
Maryland’s regulation Is not consistent
with federal regulations. However, EPA
understands that Maryland is
committed to working toward providing
WET regulatory provisions that
adequately address federal regulations.
EP has agreed to approve the
regulation revisions under the following
conditions:
(1) MDE has provided an Attorney
General’s Certification, dated May 10,
1993, that defines MDE’s legal authority
to p WET limits.
(2) !vWE has agreed to continue to
discuss Its WET’ program and the issue
of WET limits outside the context of the
this regulation revision. ?vWE will work
with EPA to finalize, within three
months of this approval, mutually
acceptable permitting procedures that
‘will be used to place WET’ limits in
permits where appropriate.
(3) MDE has agreed to revise the
regulations to embody the concepts of
40 C R 122.44(d)(1) within two years of
March 23. 1994.
Comment: 40 R 122.44(d)(1) allows
en NPDES authorized State to exercise
disaetion In establiahing whether
- pollutants are dIsr’ha,ged at a level
which will cause, have the reasonable
potential to cause, or contribute to an
excursion above any State water quality
standard. Maryland’s regulation
26.08.04.02—iC implements this
discretion by allowing the State to
determine that no “reasonable
potential” mists if a facility meets
certain specific criteria.
EP ’s response: EPA agrees that the
State determines whether a discharge
will cause, contribute or have the
reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to an excursion of a water
quality standard. However, in making
this determination a State must
consider, at a minimum, the criteria
found at 40 ‘R 122.44(d)(1)(il). “When
determining whether a discharge causes,
has the reasonable potential to cause, or
contributes to an in-stream excursion
above a narrative or numeric criteria
within a State water quality standard.
the permitting authority shall use
procedures which account for existing
controls on point and nonpoint sources
of pollution, the variability of the
pollutant or pollutant parameter in the
effluent, the sensitivity of the species to
toxicity testing (when evaluating whole
effluent toxicity). and where
appropriate, the dilution of the effluent
in the receiving water”. Maryland must
consider these minimum criteria in
determining “reasonable potential”.
Comment: There is no provision in
EPA’s regulations stating that a State
cannot exercise its discretion in NPDES
permitting on the basis of generally
applicable criteria. U EPA’s position is
that any decision under 40 ( ‘R
122.44(d)(1)(i) must be made in the
context of an individual permit. EPA’s
position Is legally incorrect. Maryland’s
regulation at 26.08.04.02—IC Is a valid
determination that any discharges
meeting the listed criteria will not
cause, have the reasonable potential to
cause, or contribute to an excursion of
water quality standard.
EPA’s response: EPA agrees that
reasonable potential determinations
need not be made only in the context of
individual permits. EPA does not have
an objection to the concept of using a
categorical provision, as opposed to a
permit.by-permit decision, to determine
reasonable potential. However, when
EPA approves the use of any general
criteria, It is important that that general
criteria is rigorously examined to ensure
that its use will adequately satisfy all
federal requirements.
As it is written, It Is difficult to
determine whether Maryland’s
regulation at 26.08.04.02—IC would
prevent a discharge from causing,
contributing or having the reasonable
potential to cause or contribute to an
excursion of a water quality standard.
However, the State of Maryland has
determined that the criteria listed in the
regulation is so narrowly defined that
the regulation applies only to dry
weather copper discharges to Colgate
Creek from the General Motors facility,
outfalls 001-4)03 and 010, located in
Baltimore. MD. EPA and Maryland have
examined the discharge in question and
have determined that It does not cause,
contribute or have the reasonable
potential to cause or contribute to a
water quality standard violation. All the
criteria listed in 26.08.04.02-IC ensure
no other facility or discharger can use
the regulation in the State of Maryland
and It is uniquely applicable to only the
General Motors facility. Due to dilution
arid tidal flow found at Colgate Creek,
the specific outfalls In question do not
discharge concentrations that cause,
contribute or have the reasonable
potential.to cause or contribute to an
excursion of a water quality standard.
Should another discharger attempt to
use this regulation, or another State
wish to adopt imflur provisions In their
NPDES permit regulations. EPA would
require specific site information, the
State’s exact rationale for a finding of
“no reasonable potential” and definitive
language which would limit use of such
-------
an exemption to an appropriate
discharge. El’A has worked ‘ ly with
Maryland regarding thin regulation and
we have determined that thin regulation
is aomptable based on the sped.fic data
obtained from MIlE in letters dated June
1.1993; February 15. 1994; and March
23, 1994..
Written C , ,i wi .b Received
1. Frances Dubrowski, Attorney.
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
2. George Van CIove Attorney. Genera)
Molars Corporation
3. Alan BahL Environmental Engineer.
Red Star Yeast & Products, Baltimore,
MD
4. Deborah J irn.ings , Potomac Electric
Power Company
S. Colleen Lament. Baltimore Gas and
Electric, Baltimore, MD
6. The Plaintiffs includin g : Baltimore
Gas and Electric Company. Delmarva
Power & Light Company. General
Motors Corporation, Bethlehem Steel
Corporation. Potomac Electnc Power
t ’ p y . Maryland Chamber of
7. Wi1ii Riley. Bethlehem Steel
Corporation. Bethlehem. PA
8. David Carroll. Seemtary. Maryland
Department of the Environment
Dante font 27.1994.
P ft
alAdermistmtor. rnvimnmeazal
Agency. Region
WR K c. 94—I737i Filed 7—15—94.8:45 am
cone —_ —
FEDERAL COMMUNICATiONS
1995 WUII4 Radlocommuolcatlon
Co .J .ee lnthasliy Committee
AGBIC? Federal I’n .IIe. .unjcnfiaras
Comm
ACT1OUL F announcement of second
WRC-e5 Advisory Committee Meeting .
mi aav In aomrdence with the
F zd ivisory Act. Public
Law 92—463. as a.n...itmd . this notion
a advises intez ed persons of the
semmd meeting of the WRC—95
Advisory r m1tten.
DAT Jely 20, 1994 :9:00—11:30 a.m.
AO r Federal Communications
- - - ‘ 1919 M Street. NW. Room
850. Wadalngton. D.C. 20554
mIPPl. TART INFORMATION The WRC-.
95 C.. _ 7 rin ’i,nIt was established
by the Federal r 1ca
to provide to the agency
advice. asrlii fce1 support and
p.r ... _ .. . . .IUL&UIone 1 cilwing to
a- ’ of U.S. proposals and
positions for the 1995 World
Radiof!mn.nunication Conferenon.
The proposed agenda for the second
meeting is as follows:
Agenda
Second meeting of the WRC-95 Industry
Advisory Committee, I tC. 1919 M
Street. NW., Room 856, Washington,
DC, July 20, 1994. 9 .00-l130 a.m.
1. Introduction of Attendees
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Introductory Remarks by Chairman
4. FormatIon of Interim Working Group
on Future WRC Agendas (IWG-6)
5. Reports and Discussion of Informal
,Working Group Activttlesi
• WIG-i: Regulatory Coordination
Group
• MG-2 Mobile-SatellIte Service
Below I Gun
• IWG-3: Mobile-Satellite Service
Above I GHz
• IWG—4: Mobile-Satellite Service
Feeder Links
• IWG—5: Space Services
6. Brief by NTIA Representative on
Government-sector Preparatory
Activities
7. DIscussion of Model Under
Development for MSS Spectrum
Requirements
8. Future Meeting Sche’ Iule
9. Other Bt h u
Federal Cenmunir Cousiimmn.
William P. Gates,
Act ngSrcietwy
(FR Doc. 94-27385 FIled 7—15—94: 8:45 aml
ea.ia.o coos srer ..s -M
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
IFEMA-1 1-ORI
South Dakota; Major Disaster and
Related Determinations
AG9ICV: Federal Emergency
Management Agency (F 1A).
ACTION: Notice.
This is a notice of the
Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of South Dakota
(FEMA—1301—DR). dated June 21. 1994.
and related determinations.
EFPECTIVE DATE: June 21. 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: -
Pauline C. Campbell. Response and
Recovery Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
Waahlngton. DC 20472, (202) 646—3606.
SUPPLRMENTARI INFORMAT1OIL Notice is
hereby given that. In a letter dated June
21.1994. the President declared a major
disaster under the authority of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
5121 e I seq.). as follower
I have d 5t . . ..mud that the damage in
certain aromaS the Stats of South Dakota.
resulting hera severe . t and flooding -
beginning on March 1. 1994. and continuing
is of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant a major disaster declaration under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief arid
Eiu ...y Assistance Act rthe Staffed
Asti. 1. therefore, declar, that sorb $ mejer
disaster exists In the Stats of South D.kot
In order to provide Federal au .’. you
ore hereby eutborirad to abort. from hands
available for these purposes. audi amounts.,
you Rod necessary (or Federal tIi Um
eerutaam end edmin lstrative expenses .
You we authwimd to provide Public
Aens*anor In the des*gnetsd areas .
Consistent with the t Federal -
eminence be suppL. . . . i.} any Eudwel
funds provided under the ‘-f --d Ad for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible s.
The time period pi ibed for the
implementation of s on 310(a).
Priority to Certain ApplisnIf ens for
Public Facility and Public Housing
As ’ on. 42 U.S.C 5153, shall be for
a period not to ed Mx months after
the date of this declaration.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant
to the authority vested In the Director of
the Federal Emergency management
Agency tmder Executive Order 12148.1
hereby appoint David P. Crier of the
Federal Emergency M ginent Agency
to act as the Federal Coordinating
Offiom far this declared disas’, .
I do hereby determine the following
areas of the State of South Dakota to.
have been affected adversely by this
declared major di . .fi r :
Brookings. Drown. 0th. Codlagtan. Day.
Edmunda, Grant. Hand. J1n .
Kingsbury. McPherson. Mathall,
Roberts. Sanborn. and Spink for Public
(Catalog of Federal Thm.tir Amistance No..
83.516, DIsaster Amletance)
James L Wilt,
Director.
IFR Dec 94—17340 FIled 7—19—94:8:45 aml
es&seo coos erreer-ar
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
pocket No. R-0842 )
Proposed Policy Statement on
Pilvately Operated Large .OoUer
Multilateral Ne ng Systems
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Request for comment.
gs..as1&qy Thi Board of Governors Is
requesting comment on a proposal to
-
36438 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 136 / Monday.
July 18. 1994! Notices 4
-------
F
Federal Register I Vol. 59. Nc. 103 / Tuesday. May 31. 1994 ,‘ Notices
28079
(FR .-4887-6l
Final NPDES General Permft for Placer
Mining In Alas
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency. Region 10. -
ACTION: Notice of a Final NPDES
Ceneral Permit. -
SUMMARY: The Director, Water Division.
of Region 10 is today issuing a final
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) general
permit under the Clean Water Act
which will authorize discharges from
placer mining facilities in the state of
Alaska.
Notica of the draft general permit was
published January 14. 1994. at 59 FR
2504. This permit is intended to
regulate placer mining activities in the
state of Alaska. EPA. Region 10 has —.
issued almost identical individual
permits to these facilities in the past and
intends to relieve some of the
administrative burden of issuing
individual permits by issuing this
general permit.
The final general permit establishes
effluent limitations, standards.
prohibitions and other conditions on
discharges from the covered facilities.
These conditions are based on existing
national effluent guidelines and
material contained in the administrative
record, including Alaska Water Quality
Standards and the National To,acs Rule.
A description oftbe basis for any
chang iñ conditions and requirements
from the proposed general permit to the
final general permit is given in the
Response to Comments published
below.
DATES: Request for Coverage: Writtee
request for coverage under the general
permit shall be provided to EPA. Region
to. as described in Part LE. of the final
permit. Coverage under the general
permit requires written notification’
from EPA that coverage has been
granted and that a specific permit
number has been assigned to the
operation.
Administzvtive Recorth The
administrative record for the final
permit is available for public review at
EPA. Region 10. at the address listed
below.
ADDRESSES: Requests for coverage
should be sent to Environmental
Protection Agency. Region 10. 1200
Sixth Avenue. WD—l34. Seattle. WA
98101.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cindi Godsay at 1200 Sixth Avenue.
WD—134. Seattle. Washington 98101 or
by telephone at (206) 553—1755. Copies
nf the final general permit. response to
comments and today’s notice may be
obtained by writing to the above address
or by calling Jeanene Carriveau at (206)
553—1214.
JPLEMENTARY INFORMA11ON :
Executive Order 12888
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this action from the
review requirements of Executive Order
12866 pursuant to section Wof that
order.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
After review of the facts presented in
the notice printed above. Ihereby certify
pursuant to the provision of 5 U.S.C..
605(b) that this general NPDES permit
will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, the permit reduces a
• signifipant administrative burden on.
regulated sources. -
Dated: May 13. 1994.
Oiaties E. Fiudley.
Director. Water Division.
Response to Comments -
On January 14. 1994. EPA. Region 10.
issued a notice for a proposed Nathinal
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) General Permit (GP) for
•Ai 1ton placer miners (59 FR 2504....
Friday. January 14. 1994). DuriTIgthe.- -
public notice period, comments were
received from National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS). Trustees for Alaska,
Northern Alaska Environmental Center.
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.
Department of Interior (DCI). Alaska
Department of Natural Resources
(ADNR). Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation I ADEC).
Utility Water Act Group. American
Rivem, Alaska Miners Association.
LlvengoodlTolovana Mining District.
Karl Hanneman. Steve J. McGrcaity.
Roger C. Buiggraf. Glenn Bouton..Paul
Manuel. Steve Masterman. Paul Sayer.
Fred Heflinger. Guy L Wiggs. and
Denise Herzog. Public Hearings were
held in Anchorage. Alaska on February
7. 1994. and in Fairbanks. Alaska on
February 8 and 9. 1994. This document
directly responds tp the significant
comments pertaining to the GP, made in
writing and at the Public Hearings, and
the Finding of Significant Impact (FNSII
for the Environmental Assessment (EA).
1. Comment:Two commentors ob;ect
to the use of a general permit due to the
variations among mine sites. One
comntentor recommends issuing
individual permits for all suction
dredges larger than 4 inches. In
addition, another commentor objects to
regulating discharges from operations
utilizing the hydraulic removal of
overburden through this GP stating
these operations should be considered
in indwidual permits.
Response: EPA’s NPDES regulations
140 R 122.2B(a)J outline the
conditions under which the Director
may issue a general permit. More
specifically. 40 CFR 122.28(a)(Z)(ii) lists
conditions the sources must meet to be
considered for a general permit
a. The facilities involve the same or
substantially similar types of operations.
b. The facilities discharge the same
type of wastes. -
c. Require the same effluent
limitations and operating conditions.
d. Require the same or similar
monitoring.
EPA has covered three different
classifications of facilities in this GP but
feels that each operation is similar to thern
others in that class. The development or
the e(fluerit guidelines for placer mining
showed that with treatment, the
pollutants of concern were the same for
all facilities. In addition, the Alaska
Water Quality Standards (WQS) have
- been taken iota account for two
parameters as being necessary for
additional controls. In EPA’s best
professional judgement. the second
condition applies to facilities utilizing
the hydraulic removal of overburden as
Long as the settleable solids are kept at
0.2 milL or below. Alsp, suction dredges
discharging to waters of the United -
States that oporate in the activo stream
channel would have-substantially the
same types of discharged waste. EPA
believes that each category can he
regulated using the same effluent
limitations and operating conditions
and facilities in each category can be
regulated using similar monitoring.
2. Comment: Several commentors
belie e that bucket dredges should be
regulated under individual permits. In
addition, one commentor feels that
small bucket dredges should be
regulated under individual permits.
Response: The Development
Document for Effluent Liriutations
Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Ore
Mining and Dressing Point Source
Category - Gold Placer Mine
Subcategory includes those larger
bucket dredges as mechanical
operations. Since effluent guidelines
and New Source Performance Standarcis
(NSPS) apply to these facilities, the
faqlities are involved in operations
similar to other mechanical operations
and thus can be regulated by this GP.
Since EPA did not include smaller
bucket dredge operations as authorized
by this GP, any application for this type
of operation would need to be addressed
in a individual permit.
-------
___ 5 1O3 a’ Tuesday 31 1 9I I No
3. Qv’d -. th
that the sd .onpP, with
National EnvIronm Paficy
(NEFA) ifs new mua is to
have a significant p.ci vieLtus the
NEFA precoer . ___
ResporismThe eanimentret me
correct baa thfs was not the intent of
Permit Parr LA.3. This part is rewritten
to read, 11 there wifl be s igiaificant
impact, the Ihcilfty will reri,uüe an
1 nviromuenta1 bnpsct Statement ‘
EPA would prepare the Saa fiurds
became available or the new cmiw
could enter a. thzna party agreement with
EPA andasagr ’f upm thArd party
contractor where the now souem wvu
pay the coa ctei bietfPA would
ewo e the work.
4. Comment: Two e m ientars
mggacf that the C? define “arspewling
tiLkiaQ’ III IMk but
expansion and a now sowon.
espcese Ths GP baa defi -
‘expanding farihity” i s Permit Pert
V .D.. am ‘ray facility increming in
size such aatoaf tthe discbasgn but
operating Within the permit ares
covered by its GP.”
5. Comanent: Severa& - .— .—- —#a
object to regulating discharges from
operations u th,a 9 the h,d llc
removal of overisedan due to the
esvlsn QIa& — this method has
on the emfacs.
Response: The NPDES
regulates pollutant d ar to suthse
watera of the United 9veias mandated
by the Clean Water Act (CWA). EPA
does not have authanty undar the CWA
to regulate land use. That authority rests
with the appropriate land management
agency.
0. Comment: Two courmeators
suggest that EPA darify Permit Pars
I.E.1. becaus. they believe that saying:
a A ’may’ quue individual
permits • ‘givesEFktoumudr
discretion.
Response: The language in the GP
comes directly out of 40 GR
122.28(ah(31W. The regulations Intended
EPA to have some d isoretfon in making
this determination.
7. Comment: Two commentors
suggest the addition aithenned fare
Total Maximum Daily Load ITMDLJ as
a reason far requiring an individual
—L
Responsm EPA agrees and it has beeir
Incorporated in Permit Part LE.i.g.
0 Comment: Two wnimentO r 5 claim
Permit Part LE.Z would allow an
applicant who falls into a category that
may require an individual permit to
gem coverage under the CF until a
derision is made on the individual
permit application.
• Rpa. m Pant LEZ
•7b. AAM..-IIslir w natf
the eperetermo wzitIzig $ywuiit
application is required. If an upvrator
fails to sh inedmeLy am
individual NPDESpsunit applii atiaaas
required. then the applicability o(thfs
g— al panels to the inthvithiai NPDES
permitlar is scmeticaflp mineted at
t h ed.lth.de p.rifiedflir
appliceth. .bmi aL ” The Regional
Administrator has the opportunity met
only to require am individual pema -
application from anew applicant , but
hearan thgfaalitycuv d by the
CPwhoeesI eo is not as indicated
on the Nutkai a(Lieai (NC 1. The C? is
appffcebletca new applicant only if
theyareiseu .ite 7 authorized by the
CF. isnorgrentedmmtl?the
applicant bushman notified according to
Permit r LP4.
9. Comment: Two commentora claim
there is a discrepan between Permit
Part IF.4. and LE.1. as towben coverage
is effective because LE. . implies that a
facility that may require an individual
permit is covered by the C? until
spoescPernth Part l.Ei.
lb. Regional Administrator may
require any parse. avtharfeadby tins
pennittoapply Ibrend obtain an
individual NPDES permit whom”; their
lists theslbntieon when en individual
permit many be required. Theme is
notbisgfn tin, part that indicates an
operation would be covered by the CF
ii it requires an individual permit (see
previous coimnaut). The CP indicates mr
both LFI. and t.F.4. that the applicant
will be notified in writing that coverage
Is granted.
10. Comment: Two anmuentore claim
that Permit Pail 11.5. gives a permittee
automatic coverage under the CF 0 they
are denied an individual permit .
Response Permit Part LE.5. states that
If a facility, already covered by the CF.
applies for and is denied an individual
permit that coverage will automatically
be reinstated under the GP. This is only
the case for pennittees already c ered ,
net just authorized, by the CF othurwue
coverage could not be reinstated as is
specified. ____
11. Cnrnr t: Two cammetu
suggest that a limitation for total
suspended solids (TSSJ be required in
the placer mining NPDES permits
because the seffleable solids effluent
guideline value of 0.2 milL does not
provide reasonable assurance that the
state water quality standards for
sediments is met or in the alternative
that T 5 should be tedinology-based
limited on the permit wrfter’s Best
Professional Judgement (BPJY.
Response.’ Effluent guidelines do r
r TSSUmite bet S 3 I
(b)(i) c) of the CWA rep mih
contain conditions necessary to comply
with stat’e . ...te quality staudsrth. The
Alaska WQS contain ow speoffic criteria
for TSS. ‘l wku,, r e. TSS would
be required only when such lImits are
needed to assure compffanco.with
aegalations 4LI water qpality
standards such as sediment or turbidity.
Because seftlsabla solids is a more
direct measure e(sed asent impacts than
TSS. it would not be appropriate to
establish a TS limit for purposes of
complIance with sediment criteria. EPA
evaluated the possibility of using a TSS
lfn in liens of the tnrtifdiiy limit to
assure compliance with state turbidity
critasia.Aravisw of the d showod
•there wec no dhwe oenelation between
TSS C eniviinna -
values. Tharedue.ne TSS limit could be.
established whkkwourdaasurs
compliance with the stain turbidity
criteria. The effl rant limitations for
settleable sell ifs and turbidity-
adequately address f!ni tpIIance with
WQS that moy be impacted by TS In
placer idrni ,g discharges. Therefore.
EPA d ” ”ed that it Lanai necessary
to ai1 TcF limits fa rSS. However
the state of A1a& were to indude
_____ fez TSS in their $ ciL 4Q
Certification, EPA would kiAa mn
the CF. But the S ” 401 Certification
has been waived hy the Stats according
to the time spai4fiid in 40 ‘R 12.4.53
sonar limitation for TSSis included.
12. two ‘ entore object
to EPA gr wing turbidity modifications.
to permittees under the GP because it
does oat prmnida th . public with formal
notice and opportunity tocommeat as
did the individual permits.
Respanse Tmbidity modificatione
were not available far public comment
for the individual piecer mining penaila
issued In the past. The additional
information to IruI i the
modifications wasalways called 1 t and -
supplied during the public comment
period. ThaG? baa allowed public
comment an the method of determining
the turbidity modifications just as did
the individual panmnib.
13. Comment: Two commentors object
to the turbidity limitation based on the
following jCe1I
a. II contradicts Lb. basic principle of
pollution control.
b. EPA has granted a mixing zone
without going through the pzocedu
required by the Al dE.% water quail
standards.
C. EPA has. Mtpd to account f or the
elTecta ofmullipLa sources of turbidity
on the same receiving water, and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 03 . Tuesday, May31 . 1994 / .Notic s
28081
d. The State of Alaska has historically
taken the approach that mass balance
equations are inappropriate basis for
determining effluent limitations.
Response: The WQS at 18 AAC
70.032(a) states: “In applying the water
quality criteria set out in this chapter.
the department will, upon application
and in its discretion, prescribe iii its
permits or certifications a volume of
dilution for an effluent or substance
within a receiving water “. The -
state water quality standards describe
dilution as an allowable method of
pollution control. The proposed permit
does take into account other man-made
soumes of turbidity on the receiving
water. Permit Part ILD.1.c. states that
the “natural” background shall be
measured for turbidity. where”natural”
background is defined as the level
upstream from all mining and other
man-made disturbances. The state has
taken the position that a mass balance
equation is not appropriate for volume
based limitations. Turbidity is not a
volume based. limitation. The values
used in the mass balance equation for
turbidity assume the worst cue
scenario. The summer low flow for the
stream (3Q2) Is the upstream flow and
the highest estimated effluent flow is
used. This should account for slight
variations In operation.
14. Comment: Two commentora
indicate that the arsenic limitations in
the placer permits will not have
sufficient public participation to
determine If they are protective.
Response: This option is an EPA
interpretation of the WQS and. -
discharges up to “natural” background
will be included in the permit as an
option to determine the arsenic
limitation. If the state of Alaska
disagrees with this interpretation in
their Section 401 CertIfication, then this
option would not be included in the GP.
The SectIon 401 CertIfication has been
waived according to the timeframe
specified in 40 G’R 124.53.
15. Comment: Several commentors
indicate that the effluent limitations In
the permit will not prevent placer
miners from violating the water quality.
standard for metals other than arsenic
and limitations should be included in
the permit based on site specific
Information. One commentór indicates
that there are two studies by Hamilton
and Buhi dated 1990 which should be
considered.
Response: The combination of the
recutulatlon of process waterand the
removal of settleable solids in any
waters discharged from the nunps will
adequately control all pollutants found
in effluents in this eubcategoiy. These
pollutants Include metals which are
reduced with a reduction In the solids.
The decision by EPA to rely on the
settleable solids limitation as an
indicator was specifically upheld by the
Ninth Circuit in Rybachek v. EPA. It
was also upheld by the Superior Court
for the State of Alaska in Stein v. Slate
because Trustees did not produce post-
1989 lational Effluent Guideline
evidence that toxic metals, other than
arsenic, discharged from placer mines
violate WQS. Although the publication
dates on the studies cited are post-1989.
the actual studies were conducted prior
to guideline development. -
.16 Comment: Two commentors claim
that EPA must apply technology-based
limitations from the National Effluent
Guidelines to suction dredges.
Response: In the development of the
Effluent Guidelines for placer mining.
the only type of dredge specified as
being covered by the guidelines were -
bucket dredges so effluent guidelines do
not apply directly to suction dredges.
Suction Dredges are regulated by BPJ
according to 40 CFR 125.3. Based on
BPJ, the effluent guidelines for
mechanical operations do not apply to
suction dredges and the requirements
Included in the GP do ppply to this -
category of discharger. - -
17 Comment: Several commentors
suggest that Permit Part IV.A. be
changed to reflect that the turbidity
measurement should be made at.natural
background.
Response: EPA agrees and has -
modified this part of the GP.
18. Comment: Two commentors daim
thaj the GP lacks an effective reporting
requirement for the technology-based
llmitâ in Permit Parts ILA.La. and
ILB.1.a. They suggest specifying an
exact procedure to determine
compliance with these requirements.
Response: This Is accomplished in
two parts of the GP. The first Is in
Permit Pail W.A.4. which states that the
amount of new water allowed to enter
the plant site for use in ore processing.
shall be limited to the minimum amount
- required as makeup water for processing
operations. The second is in Permit Part
• 113.2. and I1.B.2. which state that -
effluent discharges are prohibited
during periods when new water is -
allowed to enter the plant site. -
Additionally. there shall be no
discharge as a result of the intake of new
water. The combination of these two
provisions prevents the discharge
volume from being any more than the
volume of groundwater infiltration.
drainage and mine drainage at the site.
Reporting of non-compliance Is required
in Permit Part IV.C.2.c
10. Comment: Two commentors claim.
that EPA’s proposed reliance on sell-
monitoring is an abdication of EPA’s
regulatory responsibility.
Response: The Clean Water Act
prescribes self-monitoring in Section
308(a)(4)(A)(iv) which says that the
Administrator shall require the owner or
operator of any point source to sample
such effluents in accordance with such
manner as the Administrator shall
prescribe. Self-monitoring is a
cornerstone of the NPDES program and
shall remain Incorporated into this GP.
20. Comment: Two commentors claim
that recreational suction dredgers utilize
dredges with 4 to 6 inch intake hoses
and recommends that EPA change the
size of the dredges regulated by this
permit to greater than 6 inch Intake
hoses.
Response: EPA has completed a
literature research project considering
the environmental effects of all suction
dredge operations and potential controls
that could be placed on them. Based on
this research, EPA has concluded that
suction dredges with iltake hoses of
greater than 4 Inches may cause
environmental Impacts and will be.
covered by thIsGP. EPA has observed.
commercial miners using dredges with
IntAkA hoses less than 6 inches: It does
not matter If a suction dredge is
recreationaL Larger recreational suction
dredges may cause environmental
impacts similar to small commercial
operations. - -
21. Comment: Two commentors
suggest that new facilities should be
allowed to submit an NO! and have a
permit within thirty days of the
submission. Also, another commentor
claims that the GP notification
requirements are too restrictive because
the average summer tourist bringing a
five or six inch dredge to Ab k i for
vacation cannot dredge because their
application should have been received
byjanuaryl. ... -
Response EPA.cannot guarantee a
permit within a specified timeframe
because there may be instances where
Information needs to be clarified, or the
facility may require an individual
permit and it would not be feasible to
issue a permit in 30 days, The language
,in Permit Part I.F. has been changed to
require NOIs by Januazy.i only for those
new facilities subject to NSPS. Other
new facilities will only be required to
submit an NO! 90 days prior to
discharge. This allows time to review
the NO! and for the applicant to receive
a permit. - -
22. Comment: Several cornmentors
suggest that the methodology for
determining a turbidity modifination be
included in.the permit as well as the
Fact Sheet.
-------
Fedesal Rigid. , I Vet. S9 ! 1tt 103 a’ ThesdaT M y 3!. t £ L ’°
JlespciLem EFAagromid hes
modified Pan ILA..1.h and D.&t to
Include the heitn ’fortvu.l tht
modiflcadoas.
23. Two ntozs
mcoaunend inserting “where
applicable ” after the term “recycle
system” in Permit Part U.D.i.b
conceraing the visual inspection oh
facility because all facilities do not
unti7 recycle
Haspon Tha addih n of the phrase
“where applir hT t” may be nnfusing to
the pennhttee because the parmiuee may
decide that recycle is not applicable to
a certain site and that discharging is the
applicable way to operate. EPA does not
require the ro o ds to show adaily
inspection of the recycle system if it is
determined that recycle is not
necessary.
74 Commant Several . Imm nInI
suggest list the phrase ‘dradging in the
waters of the United States La permitted
only within the active stasera channel ’
be modified to make ft possible to
operate dredges that do not discharge to
waters of the United States or do so only
after tr 4aUuenI.
Resprnem Permit Part IILB.1. is
quoted abuee and it applies onty to
those suction dredges operatfagur
waters of the United States.. This
requirement does not app’y to those
• suction Jru4ra operating and
discharging outside wuiw ofthe United
States. These facilities with nt
would be expected to meet the
liraitatiese “ “g operations
utiI ngsi tTuqtfliairt.
25. Conwens One u ka
r.comi ih that the GPspeciflcally not
prevent the of settiesbie solids
from settling pond, for use an
re bm thn, activities.
Respw wP w t Pan V.F. does not
prevent solids from being removed from
the pond for reclamation activities.
However, care should be taken during
re k on that eeHds do not entes
watemoith. tbit.dStn$es. Totally
to. i d wess i,Iae.ed from bond. er,
tikjnct to on w.ier discharge permits.
28. Cuzuu,.it . i .g
recazumsed that the GP require
notification for pLinii.d alterations
when the IT. .i.d pollutant that is
ti4 s.-1 d is nzbjer to the effluent
limitations In the permit .
Response EPA ees and this
provision hen bom d d to Permit Pars
YLD. of the pzupu std CP.This will
make it pn ihl to reissue a GP to a
facility to reflect changes made that may
affect 0 m fl limi tirme, esperi tl?y
turbidity.
22. C omm zL Two onsomentves
recom Iøftd that zu em
made to the proposed CP that
corresponding modiflcatlonsrhe made to
the Fees Sheet.
Respciem ’The Fact Sheet is the
document that supports the dTaft
generalpenrntaedlsinitsflnal form
when it goes to public notice. Any
changestothegeneral permit from
proposed to final will be supported
through this espcnse to Coramients and
the State ?s Section 401 Certthcabon, if
any’.
28. Comment: One counnentor would
like Permit Part 112. tospecify that
EPA will notify the permittee by
certified mail due to the fact that they
may leave th, state for s v l months
and not m i their mail tmtil they
retw’e.
Response? This change has been made
to the CP ahheugh it Is EPA’s
experience that after a short period of
time, even mtcizimecf certified mail is.
renirned to the senden
29. Comment: One commentur
suggests that Pbrmit Part L.F.1.a. be
changed to remove the phrase”na later
than 90 days afterthe effective date of
the pannit due to circumstances that
may make the deadline imposathleto
meet.
Response Permit Part I.F.1.a. is
applicable to existing facilities whose
permits aru qi tlng or those needing
permits. Provisions have been made for
new fbcltdes not subject to New Source
Per orm e ric.Sherdards (NSPS) in
Permit Part LF.l.c. and for eidsthig
facilities inP rmft Part LF ,Le.
30. Comment’ Onecommeiztor
suggeststhe Issue ofa GPbsing
auk . ..aticall P terminated upon issuance
of an Individual permit be addressed in
the conditions of the individual permit
in case the facility needs the individual
permit as well as the GP.
Responser If EPA were to issue an
individual y.iuut to a facility, it would
incorporate the necessary requirements
of the GP into the individual permit to
les s e e th.pap . kthopermittae
would need to keep truth of (i.e.. one
diocharge w t 111 .ug report, one
mapplicrithn. etc.l. Thus, the GP would
no longer apply and would
automatically terminate upon the
Issuance of air individual permit.
31. Ccenmei,t: Two commentors
suggest modifying Pe . t Part IS. to
allow the use of the ADNR’s Annual
Placer Mining Application (APMA) to
serve — the NOT for the GP.
Response: EPA will accept . but cannot
require. an APMA as an MCi for this C?
as long g the APMA contains .11 the
Information en the information sheet in
Appendix A of the CP.
32. Comment: One coimnentor objects
to the requirement to monitor settleable
solids oem per day of discharge
su sxing that this Las. new definitir’
and rorommenrk that the monitorin
frequency be retureed to the pmvtou
requirement of once per day of
operation..
Responser Previously issued permits
did not contain a requirement that
settleable solids be monitored “once per
day of operatfon• In AskeLs v. United
States Eiwimnmentai Protection Agency
(9th Cr. 1993k the Issue of monitoring
settteable solids was decided on the
1985 and 1987 permits for placer
mining which states “The CWA (Clean
Water Act regulates. and NPDES
permits place conditions an.
‘discharges’ of pollutants. To monitor
for coinplt2nce with an NPDES permit.
therefore, a placer miner must mnnilor
discharges of pollnu’nit caused by his . or
her placer miner activities whenever
such discharges rr. not just on days.
when sluicing occiazs.’ 7 P34 862.
33 Comment: One cornmpnror objects
to the monitoring frequency far flow
and suggests once per week while
operating instead of once per day. in
addition, others request that the flow
monitoring req uirsmenL of the permiL be
decreased from once par day to once par
month becanse
a. Effluent Sow is static unless these
is a storm event;
b. In a storm event, the ynhimn at
receiving stream will incaeasa much
more Liz proportion to the efflueni and
c. During a storm event Alaskan
streams naturally exceed any tlvnft in.
the permit.
ResposrserSfom the 9UI CircuILCwzrt
upheld the requirement of monitoring
settleabte solids once per day of
discharge.. the Sow monitoring
frequency Is nor an onerous additionaL
burden. to the settleable soruls
monitoring. See the previous COmml.nf
for further dotalls.
34, COrnuicut Several commentors are
opp dtoanyrequirement far written
reports atherthan the annual Discharge
Monitoring Report (PMRT.. Tha objection
is to Permit Part IV.G.2.c. which says
that any violation of the effluent
lImitatIons fnPbrmit Parts ILA. and ILB.
should be reported In writing to EPA
within the shortest reasonable period of
tints.
Responsai’la the past, placer mining
permits have not contained reporting
eq . ts winch other NPDES
permits contain including notice of
violations by phone within 24 hours
and a written report submitted within. 5
daysofbecomingaware of the vjolath--
This is duo to the unreasonablanessi
the imposed timeframe. EPA does not.
believe that requiring a report in wrfting
in the shortest reasonabl. period of tiune
ii unreasonabte. The commentors
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 103 / Tuesday. May 31. 1994 / Noti
themselves have indicated in other
comments that there would be times
when the miner would need to leave the
mine site to get supplies. It does not
seem unreasonable that, at this time. the
miner could send a report to EPA if it
is necessary.
35. Comment.. One rnmmentor
indicates that turbidity modifications
should be done for the body of water
that the receiving stream flows into and
not for the receiving stream directly
because the diid nrge does not affect the
receiving stream. The commentor
objects because another permittee on a
nearby stream has a much higher
turbidity modification than does his
permit.
Response: The WQS serve Co protect
the water which is first and most
severely impacted by the discharge. The
WQS used not only protect aquatic life
but also protect the receiving waler for
use as a water supply and contact
recreation. The application of a
turbidity modification axisiders several
things including the size of the
receiving water’s drainage area and the
effluent flow from the facility. These are
the factors which can cause one
permittee’s turbidity modification to be
different than another.
36. Comment. Several commentors
indicate that the arsenic standard
should be changed in the CP because it
is too low. Several other commentors
express concern over the arsenic limit
being lower than the detection limit.
Response: In establiihing the arsenic
limit. thv”Amendments to the Water
Quality Standards Regulation:
Compliance with CWA Section
303(c)(2)(B) ; Final Rule” (57 FR 6084.
Tuesday. December 22. 1992) are used.
This rulemaking promulgated the
chemical-specific numeric criteria for
priority toxic pollutants n wy to
bring all States into compliance with the
requirements of the CWA Section
303(c)(ZIIB). The primary focus of the
rule is the inclusion of the federal water
quality criteria for pollutant(s) in State
standards as necesc ry to support water
quality-based control programs (e.g.
NPDES permits). The federal human
health standard of 0.18 pg /I. total
recoverable arsenic is applicable to
Alaska and this number has been used
to derive the end-of-pipe limitation for
theGP. -
37. Comment: Two commentors
mention that there should be a mixing
zone for arsenic. Additionally, several
other commentors believe this GP does
not prohibit a mixing zone and suggest
that the permit specify that a mixing
zone is available if ADEC approves.
Response: Mixing zones are allowed
under the Alaska standards for same
pollutant discharges. However. 18 AAC
70.032(a) states. “In applying the water
quality criteria set out in this chapter.
the department will, upon application
and in its discretion, prescribe in its
permits or certifications a volume of
dilution for an effluent or substance
within a receiving water unless
pollutants discharged could
bioaccuihulats; concentrate or persist in
the environment cause carcinogenic.
mutagenic, or teratogenic effects; or
otherwise present a risk to h,lm2n
health “Arsenic isa carcinogen.
In a letter, dated March 24. 1992. from
the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
Commissioner. John Sandor. to EPA
Water Division Director. Charles
Findley. the State has interpreted this to
mean that”• ‘ ‘a mixing zone may be
prescribed where there is no reasonable
expectation of an adverse effect on
human health or aquatic life, based on
site-specific. chemical, physical and
biological characteristica.” EPA did not
propose a mixing zone for arsenic but
would include a method for
determining a mixing zone in the permit
if ADEC determines. in their § 401
Certification, that such a niixmg zone is
appropriate and is in compliance with
Its WQS. The Section 401 Certification
has bqen waived by the State ancording
to the time specified In 40 O R 124.53
so no mixing zone is included.
38. Comment: One ( nmmantor
suggests EPA use Method 3005A for
sample preparation in advance of 206.2
so the detection level would be below
the permit limitation.
Response: This sample preparation
method is for Resource r .nce,vetion
Recovery Ad (R( A) sampling only and
not appropriate for NPDES permits.
39. C mment: One mm ntGr
recommends changing the permit
limitation to the ) .inimum level
specified in the as 4 rgIL. This
commentor claims that this level would
be protective of aquatic life.
Response: The WQS protect most
fresh water sourom for use in drinking.
agriculture, aquaculture and industrial
water supply. contact and secondary
recreation and the growth and
propagation of fish, shell fish, and other
aquatic life 118 AAC 70.050). The
criteria for growth and propagation of
fish, shellfish, aquatic life and wildlife
and also for harvesting for consumption
of raw mollusks or other raw aquatic life
are as stringent as any requirement
except perhaps industrial water supply
and secondary recreation. EPA cannot
arbitrarily choose a number to be used
as an effluent limitation in an NPDES
permit. There are regulations that must
be adhered to in setting any limitation.
To use the arbitrary effluent limitation
of 4 pg/I. would violate 40 CFR
122.44(d) which states that: “any
requirements in addition to or more
stringent than promulgated effluent
limitations guidelines or standards
under sections 301. 304. 306. 307.318
and 405 of CWA necessary to achieve
water quality standards established
under section 303 of the CWA.”
“Amendments to the Water Quality
Standards Regulation: Compliance with
CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B): Final Rule”
(57 FR 6084. Tuesday. December 22,
1992) were used to determine the
arsenic limitation. This rulemaking
promulgated the chemical-specific
numeric criteria for priority toxic
pollutants nei sary to bring all States
into compliance with the requirements
of the CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B ). Since
40 CFR 122.4(a) states: “No permit may
be issued when the conditions of the
permit do not provide for compliance
with the applicable requirements of the
CWA. or regulations promulgated under
CWA,” an arbitrary number cannot be
used. The Fact Sheet (page 13) states
that: ‘This reporting threshold does not
authorize the discharge of this
parameter in excess of the effluent
limitation.”
40. Comment: One cominentor points
out that the 16th Edition of Standard
Methods (1985) is referenced in the
permit and that there have been two
editions since then end they suggest
A update this reference.
Response: EPA has updated this to the
17th Edition of Standard Methods
(1989) since this is referenced in 40 CFR
138. revised July 1. 1993.
41. Comment: Several cornmentors
pointed out that Permit Part fl.D.4.
referenced on pages 8 and 9 of the
proposed CP does not exist in this
permit
Response: The reference has been
corrected to read Permit Part ILD.1.d.
42. Comment: Several commentors
point out that Permit Part ILD.l.c.
contains a reference to a definition in
Permit Part V.1. which does not exist in
the GP.
Response: The reference has been
corrected to read Permit Part Vlfl.K.
43. Comment: One commentor
requests a definition of new facility and
active stream channel.
Response: The GP has defined “new
facility” as one that has not operated in
the area specified prior to the
submthion of the NOL The “active
stream channel” is defined as that part
of the channel that is below the level of
the water. These definitions appear in
Part VIII. of the C?,
44. Comment: One commentor
recommends that the wording be
-------
28084
Federal Register / VoL 59, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 31, 1994 / Notices
changed in Permit Part !.F.l. from
“owners or operators of facilities
authorized by” to “owners or operators
of facilities to be authorized by.”
Response: The facilities authorized by
this CP axe specified In Permit Part 1.8.
whose title has been changed to reflect
this. The facilities to be covered by the
GP may be a smaller universe,
specifically those filing NOls and being
granted coverage in writing.
45. Comment: One commentor
recommends EPA initiate coordination
under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act due to the presence of
aitical habitat for sea lions in the
coastal areas.
Response: EPA received a species list
including the NMFS species of concern.
Comments received from NMFS
indicated that the concern was the
aitical habitat of the species. Since this
water discharge GP is written to protect
aquatic life or human health (whichever
is more stringent), no alterations of
habitat due to water discharges
authorized by this GP should occur.
Consequently. formal consultation for
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
is not necessary.
46. Comment’ One commentor states
that this GP requires 100% recycle and
this is unnecessarily restrictive because
some miners can operate without
recycling or discharging.
Response: The GP requires no
discharge of process water. It does not
specify that 100% recycle is the only
way to accomplish this.
47. Comment: One commentor objects
to the use of 5 Nephelometric Turbidity
Units (NTU5) above background for the
turbidity Limitation because this is the
limit for waters classified for contact
recreation. He recommends changing
this to 25 NTUs above background
because this level Is the threshold at
which impact on aquatic vertebrates
occurs.
Response: The WQS protect most
fresh water sources for use In drinking.
agriculture, aquacultwe and industrial
water supply, contact and secondary
recreation and the growth and
propagation of flab, shell fish, and other
aquatic life 118 AAC 70.0501. The
turbidity limitation must protect all of
these and to ensure compliance with the
WQS, EPA assumed worst case
conditions and used 5 NTUs above
natural background as a limit.
48. Comment: Two commentors object
to using “total recoverable” as the way
to measure arsenic because it does not
take into account the toxicity of the
various valence states of arsenic and the
compounds it can form.
Response: In establishing the arsenic
limit, the “Amendments to ihe Waier
Quality Standards Regulation;
Compliance with CWA Section
303(c)(2)(B); Final Rule” (57 FR 6084,
Tuesday, December 22, 1992) are used.
This specifies that the metals are
expressed in terms of total recoverable
[ 40 CFR 131.36(c 4)(iii) ) and 40 CFR
122.45(c) states that “All permit effluent
limitations, standards, and prohibitions
for a metal shall be expressed in terms
of ‘total recoverable metal’ as defined in
40 CFR part 138.”
49. Comment.- One commentor claims
that the measurement of background for
arsenic is different from that of
turbidity.
Response: The tables in Permit Parts
ILA.1.b. and ll.B.1.b. express the
measurement of background as the
“natural background” for both turbidity
and arsenic, The Commentor may be
referring to Permit Part ILD.1,c. which
stated that the background be monitored
with no reference to natural
background. This part has been changed
to correspond to the rest of the CP.
50. Comment: One commentor
indicates that the Management Practices
in Permit Parts ffl.B.1. and 2. of the
proposed GP contradict each other
because one says dredging should take
place in the active chAnnel and the
other says to do it in quiet pools.
Response: Permit Past 111.3.1. does say
that dredging should take place in the
active stream diAnnel, whereas Permit
Part 111.8.2. states that discharges from
dredging operations. wherever
practicable, shall be set into a quiet
pooL It is possible for the discharge to
be guided away from the actual
dredging site and discharged to any area
where it wiLl settle out faster.
• 51. Comment: Several commentors
suggest that Permit Part l.C. be clarified.
Response: To clarify the meaning of this
part. the title has been changed to
“Additional Requirements.”
52. Comment: Several commentors
believe that the expiration date of the
permit is unclear and suggest this
permit expire 5 years from the date of
issuance for each facility.
Response: The language in Permit Part
LG. has been clarified. This CP will
expire 5 years from its effective date as
determined by 40 CFR 124.20.
53, Comment: Several commentors
object to the definition of “natural
background” and suggest that the
definition of “natural conditions” from
the WQS 118 AAC 70.110(29) ) be used
in its place because it says that the
natural condition is the condition of the
water at the site prior to impacts from
the facility.
Response: The WQS at 18 AAC
70.110(29) states “natural condition
means the sum of the ph sir.al,
chemical, biological, or radiologica’
conditions that exist in a water bad
before any human-caused discharge to.
or addition of material to the water.”
The Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation does not
interpret this definition to mean that
this is the condition of the water before
a facility discharges to it with no regard
as to what is upstream of the site. On
the contrary, ADEC considers natural
condition to be the condition of the
water prior to any man-made
disturbances in the watershed and
suggest that if this cannot be determined
in the watershed that a similar
undisturbed watershed should be used
to determine the natwvl condition.
54. Comment: Several commentors
have concerns about the once per day
visual inspection and suggest that the
GP require the inspection only when the
operator is on-site.
Response: The commentors concerns
are valid. The GP has been changed to
require a visual inspection daily during
the mining season when the operator is
on-site.
55. Comment: Several commenlors
wished EPA to clarify Permit Part ll.D.b.
relating to what the records should
include,
Response: To clarify this part, it
been changed from “These records .
include, but are not limited to. an
evaluation of the condition of all water
control devices such as diversion
structures and basses and all solid
retention structures such as berms.
dikes• “ to “These records shall
include an evaluation of the condition
of all water control devices such as
diversion structures and berms and all
solid retention structures including, but
not limited to, berms, dikes
56. Comment: Several commentors
express concern over the method of
measuring flow for the GP and request
guidance on how to measure flow from
a facility that has no discharge from a
pipe or constructed pond overflow,
Response: To provide the requested
guidance, the sentence, “If measurement
is impractical, the operator must make
a good faith effort to estimate seepage
discharging to waters of the United
States each day that seepage occurs,”
has been added to Permit Part l1.D.a.f.
57. Comment: Several commentors
request that reasonableness be taken
into account in Permit Part IILA ,5. and
suggest that the Management Practice
read” • berms,dikes, pond
structures, and dams shall be reasc
maintained to continue their
effectiveness’
Response: EPA does not view the
addition of the word “reasonably” to
this management practice as changinv
-------
Federal Register / VoL 59. No. 103 / Tuesday. May31. 19941 Notices
— a... ,.
28085
the intent of it consequently, this
change has been made to the GP.
58. Comment: Several commentors
would like the term “mining season”
defined.
Response: EPA has never contended
that there was a set timeframe for a
mining z ” Recognizing that there
are various levels of mining intensity.
however. EPA has defined mining
season for a particular facility In Permit
Part VULL as “the time between the start
of mining in a calendar year and when
mining has canned for that same
calendar year.”
59. Comment: Several commentors
recommend that Permit Part 111.3.6.:
a. Distinguish between requirements
for reclaimed and unreclaimed areas
and which need to be addressed at the
end of the mining season:
b. Change the words “after the mining
season” to “when mining has ceased for
a particular season: ’ and
c. Claim the word “additional” is
su—uoua.
Response: The commentors are
correct that a distinction should be
made between unzeclaimed and
reclaimed lands. Runoff from lands that
are fully reclaimed and have been
released from bond are not subject to
any water discharge permits. The permit
has been changed to reflect this
distinction. The term “mining season”
has been defined In Permit Part VULL
(see previous comment) so the language
in the GP will remain. Because It is
redundant to have a sentence containing
the word “additional” and the phrase
“over those resulting from natural
causes.” the word “additional” has been
deleted from the CP.
60. Comment. Several commentors
recommend that EPA clarify Permit Part
V.G. so that bypasses of water around a
site for the essential rn intenance and
efficient operation of the mine are not
included as effluent. The cummentors
iecnmmpnd that Permit Pails V.G.2. and
3. be deleted.
Response: Bypass. as referred to in
Permit Pail V,G., is d fln in Permit
Pazt VULB. as “the intentional diversion
of waste streams around any portion of
a treatment facility” (emphasis added).
Since water that has no contact with the
mine site is not considered a waste
stream. the bypasses that the
.-.. ,.inentors refer to ate diversions not
bypasses an defined in the CP. The GP
tnjn , this onndl Inn based on 40 D ’R
122.41(m).
GL Comment.’ Several commentors
request that the Fact Sheet be Included
with the proposed CP slang with other
eapporliog material be maintained as
pan of the GP.
Response The Fact Sheet and other
supporting material will be maintained
as part of the Administrative Record for
the final GP.
62. Comment: One corumentor
recommends that more guidance be
given to the operator in tAking samples
for turbidity. both effluent and natural
-background. One commentor suggests
specifying a time frame of 25 uinutBs
rather than a “reasonable time.”
Response: While EPA would like to
give more guitisnre to the operator in
tAking samples. a timeframe of 25
minutes between effluent and natural
background would be unworkable in
some ni The natural hAi*ground is
defined as being upstream from any
man.made disturbance and while this
may be right upstream from the first
mine on a stream, it could be many
miles for an operator close to the end of
the stream. Specifying a “reasonable
time” is appropriate under these
circumstanom.
63. Comment: One commentor urger
implementation of a, diti I Best
Management Practices (BMPa) to protect
stream hank . and riparian habitat
restore pool. riffle, and stream habitat
for fish and remove fish barriers.
Response: EPA does not believe these
practboss are reasonably ne’.—’ - ’y to
achieve effluent limitations or standards
under 40 R 122.44 (k ),
64. Comment: One commeator objects
to turbidity modifications and a visual
turbidity location for suction dredges
stating that these are federally
sanctiojied mixing mans and have not
gotten full treatment under NEPA.
Respozlfe: Mixing zone designations
or Implementation of WQS are not. per
Section 511(c) of the CWA. defined as
a “majoitifederal action” subject to
NEPA.
65. Comment: One commentor
requests Information on the n I rd of
proof EPA will bold ADEC to if a mixing
zone is proposed for arsenic,
Response: ADEC would have to show
that there would be no reasonable
expectation of an adverse effect on
human health or aquatic life from the
mixing zone.
68. Comment: One coinmentor
recommends including guidelines.
objectives, or r iteria to prevent mines
being left at the end of the season in
such a way that flushing. eronon and
degradation will not oceur.
Response: The Management Pramice
In Permit Part ULA..8. addiewes this
issue.
67. Comment: One commentor
recommends that the Standard
Conditipns of AtmIrA Department of
Fish and Game’s (ADFG) placar permits
be adopted as part of the proposed GP.
Response: EPA has incorporated
several of these Standard Conditions
into the proposed CP as deemed
- appropriate. The other conditions in
ADFG’s permits contain issues that the
NPDES program has no authority over
and as such, cannot be regulated in the
GP.
68. Comment: One commentor
requests the scientific basis for
requesting suction dredges to discharge
into “quiet pools” where fish routinely
hold.
Response: EPA does not require
di harges into “quiet pools” at all.
much less “quiet pools where fish
‘routinely hold”. The purpose of
discharging to a quiet pool is to inmease
the opportunity for discharge material to
settle more without going downstream.
69. Comment: One commentor objects
to the storm exemption stiiiing that
reasonably predictable flooding is more
along the lines of a fifteen or twenty
year flood event of 12—16 hours rather
than the 5 year. 6 hour storm event as
stated in the proposed CP.
Response: The storm exemption is
designed to provide an affirmative
defense to an enfori mpne iwainn EPA
recognises that mines should not be
required to construct treatment for the
maximum precipitation event or series
of preapitation events that could ocour
with the resulting effects on wastewater
and mine drainage discharge flows. A
has established, through the
development of Effluent Guidelines, the
criteria for designing. constructing, and
maintaining the wastewater treatment
facilities. The facilities must be able to
contain and treat the maximum volume
of wastewater resulting from processing
ore during a 4 hour period plus the
volume that would be discharged from
a 5-year. 6-hour precipitation event The
storm exemption Is contained in 40 CFR
440.141(b) but can only be used as an
affirmative defense If all requirements of
the regulation are met (i.e., compliance
with the BhWs In 40 C ’R 440.148 and
related previsions of its NPDES permit.
and compliance with the notification
requirements in 40 CFR 122.4 1(m) and
(nH.
70. Comment: One commentor objects
to the use of the GP to cover mine sites
that are located over known minable
deposits of heavy metals other than gold
and if the mine site has been historically
mined using mercwy.
Response: In the development of the
Effluent Guidelines for Placer Mining.
EPA conducted sampling and analysis
at faci)ities which represented a wide
range of locations, operating conditions.
processes. water use rates, topography.
production rates, and treatment
technologies. From the sampling. EPA
-------
Federal Register I VoL 59. No. i03 I Tuesday. May 31. 1994 / Notices
selected ceitleable eli. ’ as the only
polluntof.--- -- -toberegulatedby
the effluent gni ’- .”— — and the sampling
indicated no high levels of any metals.
The quantities and treatability of
pollutants in thmu treated wastewaters
form the basis I Cr selection of pollutant
parameters for regulation. The
Administrator is requited by the CWA
to consider the regulation of all toxic
pollutants and fr 5 u.ieS of pollutants
listed un Igw Sv ’ ’ 307 but is not
specifically required to regulate any of
them.
71. Comment Two nmmentors object
to the mi dng zone given to suction
dredges.
Response The WQS at 18 AAC
70.032(a) sa r L that “ In applying the
water quality jiIc, & sat out in this
chapter. the J Øuut q1t will. upon
application and in its discretion.
prescribe in its psamits or certifications
a volume of dilutian for an effluent or
substance within a u.dving
water . . . The state water quality
standards describe dilution as an
allowable m.Ihnd of pollution control.
EPA ij. ,nwdtheni inng zone in the
proposed (P and lithe State disagrees
in its 401 Certification with this
mixing dcIw” 1Ofl. EPA would
insert the e ’s datsamination of the
mixing into ihaGP. The Section
401 Cmti lon ba. been waived
according to the timeframe specified in
40(7R 124 .53. -
72_ Sewoul commentors
object to the t.....g frequency for
turbidity and — .—-. - One commentor
objects to the — ‘-‘ -‘—g frequency for
arsenic h—- . — — mu sampling per
cf ffk .i I and natural
backgtuuinl is statistically valid.
R..p-.n Manitering far these
pollutants has bans established at less
frequent iMwIhv’ * sampling and
analysis for liens pmumetars are more
di i1tend 1yduein part from
reqwnng he eund samples.
Samples fm l. _ :i. g purposes must
be t ken Jw IqJ disabsage at a time
when the . -p- --1k has reached
equilibrium. A iãea that the
required frequencies will be
fruit to compliance with
73. C •-----—- Two commentors
suggest EPA das h 1 the procedure for
suction dr..l 57 . amducfing visual
ins __
Respotur The jaucerlures are
outlined in init Part ILC. The visual
inspection oIths str m should be done
500 lest train the operating
dredge. If these many visual increase in
the do” li’ or muddiness of the
water. it would be considered a
violation. ilibisdoesoccur. the operator
must slow down or stop operations unUl
there is no longer a violation.
74. Comment: Two commentors
request a discussion of the applicability
of the GP to marine operations and
coastal areas.
Response: This GP does not apply to
marine operations. Permit Part l.B.1.b.
should have included the exception of
dredges operating in open waters as
specified in 40 CFR 440.140(b). This
part has been changed to reflect this
comment. Operations that are
authorized by this GP and are in coastal
areas may apply for coverage under this
GP. The Alaska Department of
Governmental Coordination (A DCC) has
not given EPA a consistency
determination on the CP under the
Alaska Coastal Zone Management Act.
EPA would like to expedite the issuance
of this GP and has made provisions in
Permit Part I.A.5. so that facilities in the
coastal zone seeking coverage under the
GP would be able to obtain coverage
after ADGC has made a determination.
either for the facility individually or on
the CP. ADCC’s determination on the
GP could come in the form of a formal
determination or as a waiver due to the
six month review tirnefraine which will
elapse on July 24. 1994.
75. Comment: One commentor objects
to the use of a visual inspection for
turbidity for suction dredge operations.
Response: The visual monitoring for
suction dredging has been included in
the GP pursuant to 40 GR 122.43
which says that conditions not
specifically required in the regulations
can be placed in permits to provide for
and assure compliance with all
applicable requirements of the C .VA.
EPA has used best professional
judgement in determining this
requirement.
76. Comment: Several commentors
state that the permit only covers gold
placer mines and that other placer
mines (I.e.. platinum and tin) should be
Included since the mining techniques
are for all practical purposes identical to
those covered for gold placer operations.
Response: EPA will consider these
operations in the next issuance of the
GP. EPA would consider it
inappropriate to include these
operations without an opportunity for
public comment or inclusion in the EA.
77. Comment: Several commentoiu
object to EPA not including small
mechanical operations not authorized
by the effluent guidelines in this general
permit. Further, two other commentors
object to EPA not authorizing small
suction dredges in this GP.
Response: See comment 76.
78. Comment: Several commentors
object to the use of the GP to regulate
placer mines in wild and scenic n
and conservation system units.
Response: EPA has included in
possible requirements for an individual
permit. facilities where other federal or
State legislation, rules or regulations
directly or indirectly related to water
quality may apply to that facility. This
provision is found in Permit Part l.E.1.i
79. Comment: One cominentor would
like Permit Part LC. clarified so it is
understood that the GP applies in wild
and scenic rivers, conservation system
units and in anadromous streams.
Response: The GP would apply in
these areas except where it has been
determined according to Permit Pail
l.E.1.i. that an individual permit is
required.
80. Comment: Several commentors
object to natural background being
defined as above all man-made
disturbances on the stream for
measurement of arsenic and turbidity.
One commeritor suggests that EPA
designate the natural background point
Response: According to EPA’s
experience, the number of miners ho
report discharging has dropped
significantly in the past few years. EPA
expects this trend to continue. For those
few miners that do discharge. EPA
determine, upon request, the porn
which the natural background sam 1 .
will be taken. In determining the sample
point. EPA will consider, with the input
of the permittee and/or the Alaska
Division of Mining, geologic factors.
drainage patterns, access, and the
location of active and historic manmade
disturbances. This has been
incorporated into Permit Part 1W. 1 .c.
for turbidity and Permit Part liD. I .d. for
arsenic.
81. Comment: Two commentors
suggest that Permit Part ULB.4. is too
all-inclusive and should be changed to
say that other permits and restrictions
.may apply if there isa possibility of
fisheries being affected by suction
dredging: Two other comnientors claim
that Permit Part 111.8.4. is loosely
worded and unenforceable. Two
- conunentars recommend that the
reference to harassment of Ash should
be defined or deleted from Permit Part
01.8.4. -
Response: EPA believes that Permit
Part IILB.4. is a duplication of Permit
Part IC. and has deleted the former from
the GP.
- 82. Comment: One commentor claims
EPA should distinguish between thø
critical parameters of both intake
and engine power.
Response: EPA did not consider
engine power along with size of intake
hoses because the requirements of the
GP should suffice to minimize impai :
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59. Io. 103 I Tuesday. May 31. 1994 / Notices
28087
The daily inspections. for downstream
impacts with the requirement to -
decrease or cease operations if impacts
o’cur aie applicable to eli authorized
suction dredges regardless of engine
size.
83. Comment: One commentor objects
to EPA not considering river bottom
variability in permitting suction dredges
and suggest that EPA issue basin
speci c general permits to account for
this.
Response: EPA recognizes the -
variability of sediment sizes throughout
a Iluvial system. It is this recognition
that prompts the restriction confining
the activity to the active stream channel.
At least in this area, the percentage of
fines is typically at a minimum with
respect to the entire fluvial system and
impacts will be minimized.
84. Comment: Two commentors claim
.that EPA has never enforced its own or
the state of Alaska’s antidegradation
policy.
Response: EPA does not have an -
antidegradation policy but does
mandate antidegradation-as part of a
crate’s water quality standards 140 OR
131.6 and 131.121. To date, the state of
Alaska has not implemented their anti-
degradation policy. The pending
standards revision address
antidegradation. The State plans to
begin their implementation soon and
EPA Intends to work with the State in
the implementation of then policy. If a
placer mine is shown to be affected by
the policy. It may be required to apply
for an individual permit This condition
has been added to the proposed GP as
Permit Part I.E.1.h.
85. Comment.’ Two commentors
suggest revising Permit Part m.A.6. to
include detailed reclamation procedures
to ensure that seasonally or permanently
abandoned mines do not pollute the
receiving waters.
Response: Permit Pail IILA.8. was
included in the CP pursuant to 40 OR
122.44(k)(3). This regulation requires
NPDES permits to contain BMPs that
serve to control or abate the discharge
pollutants when the practices are
reasonably necessary to achieve effluent
limitations and standards or to carry out
the purposes and intent of the CV ’A. -
EPA does not believe that detailed
reclamation procedures are reasonably
necessary. The requirement of the CP
does carry out the purposes and intent
of the CWA.
86. Comment: Several commentors
object to the reporting requirements for
arsenic that require any measurement
tess than the detection level to be
reported as zero. anythisig between the
detection level and the minimum level
‘41 to be reported as M. the minimum
level or 2 and anything over the
minimum level to be reported as the
actual number.
Response: This reporting requii ement
was based on draft policy that has
changed since the proposed GP was
public noticed. The GP’nowreflects the
latest draft policy from EPA
Headquarters which states that &
minimuni level (ML) can be calculated’
from a i ethod detection level (MDL).
For arsenic in this GP. the MDL of I ig/
L is multiplied by 3.18. The product is
rounded to 3 and this becomes the ML.
Samples measuring less than the ML are
to be reported as 0 Mg/L while analysis
greater than the ML should be reported
as the actual measure. The Fact Sheet
(page 13) and the GP in Permit Part
ILD.1.d. state: “This reporting threshold
does not authorize the discharge of this
parameter in excess of the effluent
limitation.” - -
87. Comment: One commenror
suggests that EPA give some
consideration to the 1989 Alaska -.
Supreme Court Decision regarding the
lowest measurement practical for
settleable solids.
Response: EPA believes that settleable
solids can be measured with an Imboff
cone accurately to 0.2 mI/l. However.
Permittees are asked to estimate , -
readings below this level even though -
they are less accurate. If ADEC does not
agree that this is protective of WQS and
specifies it in their Section 401
Certification, EPA would make the
required changes to the GP. The Section
401 Certification has been waived
according to the timeframe specified in
40 OR 124.53.
The following comments were received
on the LA from National Marine
Fisheries Service. Alaska Department of
!Qatural,Resources and Alaska Miners
Association. These comments have not
been addressed in the above zesponses.
88. Comment: One conunentor
suggests that the Purpose and Need for
Action section of the LA covering
cumulative impacts does not do so
properly.
Response: Cumulative effects will be
more specifically addressed In the LAs
which will continue to be prepared for
the individual new source NPDES
permit actions (i.e.. in the context of
site-specific conditions and those
cumulative effects associated with a
proposed project). Where the potential
for significant cumulative impact exists.
an environmental impact statement will
be required. The proposed general
permit action evaluated in the LA will
not alter the methodology by which
cumulative effects ais assessed under
the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEP c) prior to the permit decisions.
89. Comment: One commentor
suggestr that DO!. Mineral Management
Service be Iskiuded in the section on
Placer Mining Regulatâry Programs
since it administers leases and permits
mining activities within Alaska’s Outer
Continental Shelf.
Response: This additional information
will be incorporated into the LAs
prepared for new source projects. It
should be noted that the final GP does
not cover those offshore operations (see
Comment #74)
90. Comment: One commentor
suggests that discussion of the Army
Corps of Engineers regulatory program
for placer mining be expanded
especially regarding general permits and
specific activities which fall under their
jurisdiction, -
Response: See response 89.
91. Comment: One cominentor
suggests that no additional discharges
into water quality limited segments be
authorized until TMDL determinations
are completed.
Response: EPA will continue to assess
potential for exceedances of water
quality standards for all new source -
projects subject to NEPA review
(regardless of their location) prior to the
decisions whether or not to authorize
the discharges. Permit limitations would
also reflect ThfDLs for any stream
segment for which a Th(DL is prepared.
92. Comment: One commentor
requests clarification of how mitigative
measures would be handled under the
GP.
Response: Additional mitigation
measures which EPA may impose as
permit conditions, as a result of the
NEPA (LA or EIS) review, are limited to
those authorized by the NPDES
program. and therefore must be
reasonably necessary to carry out the
purposes and intent of the CWA. CWA-
related conditions other than those
already in the general permit which are
determined in an LA or EIS to be
necessary in order to avoid the potential
for significant impact to water quality
can be incorporated into an individual
NPDES permit. The general permit
includes a provision allowing for the
drafting of an individual permit as
necessary, EPA may issue or deny an
NPDES permit taking into consideration
all impacts (discharge related or other)
disclosed in the NEPA review, and the
extent to which potentially significant
adverse impacts can be mitigated.
Mitigdtion may also be developed by the
applicant or be required by the land
management agency or other agency
regulatory program with jurisdiction
over the project.
93. Comment: One commentor clâim .
there is a typographical error in the
I
I
-------
zaaaa
Federal Rugi r I VoL 59. ! . I ’03 t Tuesday. May 31, I9SS I P Ikes
section “Desoriptisnof Piopeeaek
__ __ the
I-
should be &nt n 1 pe aethou4
inthe
R.spn vee The phi i iiw4nd.d in
the list of facilities not tbo d by
this GP. The C? cinfy .t*bani esthen
dredges with intakes tar than 4
inches in the phr in the EA is
COZT .
94. CwnmeaL e coinmentor
suggests that there will be gniflcarg
impacts becn e the permit will likely
force s a nt e operatees out of business
form them to rish being charged with
non-compliance, fined and charged a
aimuiaf due to the arsenic limitation in
the proposed CR
Response: The C? limitation for
arsenic is the same an it is in the
individual 1 w w tn that have been
issued since the ‘ m,nchaents to the
Water Quality Standards Reg iZatfcn.
Consplfancw with CWA Sdctiom
303 (cJ(2 1(B); Final R ale” (57 FR 6084..
TUesday. December 22. Tggz, went i o
effect. Therefore, there is no change in
impact.
AIflHORIZATIOPI TO SSS 4AR UIID€R
ThE NATIONAL POLLAITAMT 0ISCI4A GE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM FOR 1&ASIIN4
PLACER MINERS -
lr r l Permit P AK-G-3 -OOO0L
In comph . with the provisions of
the Cain WatoeAgt ICWA) . 33 USC .
1251 at seq.. aaam.ndadbytheWa
Quality Act of 1987, Public Law 100—4.
the
Owners and operators of herlities
engaged in the pan.-.- in; of placer gold
are authonand to discharge to . of
the United States. in ai rdanc. with
effluent Limitation. m . Jwing
requirements. and other ditioes sat
forth hereto.
A Copy of This General Permit Must
belCept at thoSite Where Discharges
This permit shall b.com . effecti,,
June 30. 1994. This penilil and the
authorization to discharge ebail expire S
years from the effective date ofth.
permit.
Charles a F l ed ? . y,
Director. WoerThwsion llbgialr ? O V S.
Tabi. o(Contenta
Co eer Pc go
I. Coverage Under Tins Penme
A. Coveesge and ffltgibiNty
B. Authorized Placer Mining Operation s
C. Additlanal Requirements
D. P. .’-- --
E. Requiring an Individual Perm
F. Noiifan e. 9aqvuen e
C. Permit Eapriation
IL Effluent LIMl 1
A. M— --- i .il. . TnditleinI
Sluicinal
ft
C. Su i ib.dging
D. MrmiIarmg RerpWeme
IN. M tr
A. Mechanical and Etydreulic
Removal of Oiiu,inedes
.
C. Othu
a Siim . s
IV. I Ioth and Repertlug R.quizemenu-
A. th .-S mpIfog
ft Rep Of Mc Resnlt
C. M MthIgPPOCSth5U,
D. AddItloesi M. _ .L Ig P the Ptenittae
. p. _ . _ ..L
F. Retostizeof . . a
C of P .k....z ..plire Repertin .
H. Other L n mpii.... .. . 9IpeI g
1. Inspection er4 Entry
V. Compliance Responsibilities
A. Duty t.G..,4 .
B. Penalties for Vt, kimad I’ rmd
Conth
C. DIes&teHshc, Rnd Aervity a
Dthnae
0. Duty to Mitigate
E . Proper Qrr . inn mj lauan
r
C. 9vpass of aumteni Facilities
H. Upset Conditions
L Toxic Polletanta
VI. Cenera! Eaquirementa
Acbanges j fl rtIMgeOITI iI iC Substancea
B. Planned Cl1 ng&
C. Anticipated tJ ’rn”pllaace
0. Perm A ona.
E DatT R pptY
F. Duty to Provide information
C. Other fn*mnnaffee
H. Signatory Requirements
L AvailabtIi y of Raporm
J. Oil and Haaandou, Subetanc. Liahiiny
V... Property Ria)ts
L Severability
M.State Laws
VIL. P . ’pin r Clause
VIII. Definition.
DL Special Condiziam—Effluent Limits
Below Detection L.evels
A. Reporting Levels
8. Rspertln Details
Attnc.bmant I
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Appendix A
I. Coverage Under Thin Permit
A. Coverage and Eligibility
1. Rri . umg Facilitfes Existing
facilities (them facilities having
individual NatIonal Pollutant Discharge
Eliminatien System INPDES permilsf
are authorized under the terms and
conditions of this permit Upon the
submittal eta Not of tent (NOD to
gain ce er nmt this permit.
consiegewrlP b,ed .onorthnr
Permit Pte* Pt
Z. Padin Ap icmi.nx Tpea
all dfltfes wbch
have eubinifted appifantiemin
accordance with 40 CR 122.21(al am
oeih J undorthe fo and
conditions of this Covamge wifl
be 5 J Part F.4.
3. New Feriliffes ’ New facifitfee tIter
are to be w,.. untfatr
the CWA will be ro uiresL to have an
Environmes 1 Assessment (EAI
completed pwsuanttotha National
En w . .wvntal P flq Act (l’IlPA . A
finding of no significant inspant (FNSTJ
by EPA is necesrary prior to receiving
Co n e under this permit. If there will
ho a sfgniflcent rmpacr. the facility will
ivquuv an Env omn i tnt Impact
Statement (EZS1. fl fQ detnrimlned Cc
be now disthampia wLflbacovamd by
the terms andw . .drinn . alibis r” ’
Iftheymeetallthenecessery -
requir.nQnLe of cn.vsn . - -
4. Expanding F ita Fn iILIui that
contemprataexp ’ndin shall submit a
now MCI that des bes 5 tha og
discharge. Tho ciasio t panont will he-
terminated and a. now
the rhnngeq . issued in its place if the
facility meets all the nor 4ary
equlre nL o(crsvamRe.,
5. Faci&ics FaciL
located in Lbs r etal _ - .. .
detennf.oedby the tj ce . .I Zone
Management Act. Shall submit, with
thoff Notice of Intent @10 13. an
lncffvidual consistency determination
from Alaska Division of Gavesninantal
Coordination (ADGCI unless ADGC
makes an overall datarmination on this
GeneraL Permit after us jccii ii .
& iicrized Place A ning Operatiarrs
1. F3ci tles Chat mine and process
gold placer ores using gravity
separalionmetboda to recover the gold
metal c t fn .J in the ore..
a. Open-ott gold placer mines except
those oponci inJr t that. mine less
than 1,500 cubic yards of ore per
mining season.
b. Mechanical dredge geld placer
mines (not suction dredges? except
those diedges that remove less than
50.000 cubic yards of placer ora per
mining season or dredge in open. waters.
2. Suction dredges with intake hoses
of greater than 4 inchea.
3. Operations utilizing hydraulic
removal of overburden.
C. Adthtineel Requirements
1. Marry streams and streem rear
in Alaska have been designated as
of the federal wild and scenic rivers
system eras C .. . .. .tion System Units
(CSUs) by the tudcral government.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 103 / Tuesday: M y . 199 1 N ices
28089
Permittees should contact the district.
offices of the. federal agencies that
administer the designated area for
additional restrictions that may apply to
operating within the area.
2. Many streams in Alaska where
placer mining occurs have been
designatedby the Alaska Department of
Fish and Came (ADF&G) as anadromous
fish streams. Placer mining activities in
these streams require an ADF&G Fish
Habitat Permit which may include
additional restrictions. The “Atlas to the
Catalog of Waters Important for the
Spawning, Rearing, or Migration of -
Anadromous Fish” lists the streams in
the State which require prior ADF&G
authorization. In addition, placer
mining activities in resident fish
streams require an ADF&G Fish Habitat
Permit If the proposed activity wilr
block or Impede the efficient passage of
fish. Perinlttees operatingin.
anadromous or resident fish streams
should contact the ADF&G to determine
permitting requ rements and additional
restrictions that may apply. —
D. Prohibitions
- Discharges from the following
beneficiation processes-are not - -
authorized under this permit: Mercury
amalgamation. cyanidatlon. froth
floatation, heap and vat leaching.
E. Requiring an Individual Permit -
1. The Regional Administrato may
require any person authorized by this
permit to y for and obtain an
individual NPDES permit when:
a. The single discharge or the
cumulative number of discharges is/are
a significant contributor of poUution: -
b. The discharger is not In compliance
• with the terms and conditions of the
general permit:
c. A change has occurredfn the
availability of demonstrated technology
or practices for the control or abatement
of pollutants applicable to the point
• source:
d. Effluent limitations guidelines are -
subsequently promulgated for th. point
sources covered by the general permit
e. A Water Quality Management plan
containing requirements applicable to
such point sources is approved; or
f. An Individual Control Strategy (ICS)
is required under SectIon 304(L) of the
Act, or
g. A Total Maidmwn Daily Load.
(TMDL) and corresponding wasteload
allocation has been completed for a
waterbody or a segment of a waterbody.
or
h. A review of the facility shows that
it is subject to the State of Alaska’s anti-
degradation policy.
• I. There are other federal or State
legislation, rules or regulations
pertaining to a site directly or indirectly
related to water quality.
2. The Regiona1 Administrator will
notify the operator in writing by
certified mailthat a permit application is
required. If an operator fails to submit.
in a timely manner, an individuaL
NPDES permit application as required.
then any applicability of this general
permit to the Individual NPDES
permittee is automatically terminated at
the end of the day specified for
application submittal.
3. Any owner or operator authorized
by this permit may request.to be - -
excluded from the coverage of this “
permit by applying for anindividual
permit The owner or operator shall
submit an individual application (Form
I and FormiC or 3D) with reasons
supporting the request to the Regional
Administrator no later than 9Q days
alter the effective date of the permit
4. When an individual NPDES permit
is issued to an owner or operator
otherwise covered by this permit. the
applicability of this permit to the
- facility is automatically terminated on
the ’effectivedate ofthe individual
permit. - . .. - --
5.-When an individual NPDES perapit.
is denied to an owner or operator
otherwise covered by this permit. the
- permittee Is iutomatlcally reinstated
under this permit on the date of such
• denial, unless otherwise specified by
the Regional Administrator. A. new
facility can receive coverage under this
general permit by submitting an NO!.
See Permit Part LA.3. for details.
6. A source excluded from a general
permit solely because it already has an
individual permit may request that the
lndivid I permit be revoked and that it
be covered by the general permit. Upon
revocation of the individual permit, the
genera) permit shall apply to the source.
F. Notification Requirements
1 Owners or operators of facilities -
authorized by this permit shall submit
an NO! to be covered by this permit.
The Information required for a complete
NO! is In Appendix 4 of this permit. --
Notification must be made: -
a. Within 90 days of issuance of this
permit: or
b. By January 1 oF the year of
discharge from a new facility or a
facility established since 1988 subject to
New Source Perforn ce Standards
(NSPS) that has not previously been
covered by a permit or
c. 90 days prior to discharge from a
new facility not subject to NSPS; or
d. 9Odays prior to the expiration of
an oitisting Individual permit. or
e. 90 days prior to discharge for any
other facilities. Authorization to
discharge requires written notification
from EPA that coverage has been
granted and that a specific permit
number has been assigned to the
operation.
2. The NO! shall be signed by the
owner or other signatory authority in
accordance with Permit Part VI.a
(Signatory Requirements), and a copy
shall be retained on site in accordance
with Permit Part IV.F. (Retention of
Records). The address for NO!
submission to EPA is: United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region 10,1200 Sixth Avenue, WD—134.
• Seattle, Washington 98101.
• 3.AcopyoftheNO lmustalsobesent
to the regional office of the Alaska
Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC) that has
jurisdiction over the mine. The
addressee are:
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, 410 Willoughby, Suite
-105. Juneau, 99801 -
Alaska Department of Environmental’
- Conservation. Northern Regional
• Office. 610 University Avenue, -
Fairbanks. I cki . 99709
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation. Southcentral Regional
OThce. 3601 “C” Street, Suite 1350,
- Abchorage. Alaska 99503:: - -.
4. A copy of the general permit will
be sent to the permittee when it is
determined that the facility can be
granted coverage under this general
permit. If it is determined that coverage
cannot be granted under this permit. the
applicantwillbeinformedofthisin -
writing, - - . - -
G. Permit Expiration
This permit will expire five ( 1 years
from the effective date. For facii tias
submitting a new NO! 90 days prior to
expiration of this general permit, the
conditions of the expired permit
continue in force until the effective date
of a new permit. -
U. Effluent Limitations
A. Mechanical Operation (Traditional
Sluicing) (Not including Suction
Dredges)
During the term of this permit. no
wastewater discharges are authorized
except,as specified below. -
1. Effluent Limitations
a. The volume of wastewater which
may be discharged shall not exceed the
volume of Infiltration, drainage and
mine drainage waters which is in excess
of the make-up water required for
operation of the beneficiation process.
-------
F umI RIer I VoL S P 103 ITlissday. h y 31, IaSt P kes
Effluent duractethbc
‘ ‘r
SetSeabte Solids
Turbidity ...._.
Arsemo, Tota’ Recov .
-
02 mUt.
5 NTUs above nab,.
mfbackqrouvat’
(SJ 0J8 fL
bock-
—.
‘Subiect to Twthdty Mo an e tSn ie
Permit Part VtILT.
25 PemVt PM ig.o ,.g
2. Effluent d l s h u are prohibited
duringperiods when ITOW water is
allowed to enter the plant site.
Additionally, there shall be no
discharge as a result of the intake of new
water.
B. Hydraulic Removal of Overburden
D oz ing the term of this permit. tie
wastewater discharges are authorized
except as specified below.
1. Effluent Limitations
S. The w oi iuatse .hL.h
may be discharged shall ant exceed the
volume of infiltrañen 1 drainage and
mine drainage wet which is in ss
of the makeup water res ed for
operation of the hydraulicking FOce
b. The w uater discharged shall
not esteeM the lollowing
Effluent cl .lei 1
tile
Seffleabte Solids ..._.
Turbidity ._..._._
Arsenic, Tatatfloco, .
.
02 miT.
5 MTUs above natu
rat backgroisxt
ft 0i8 tqL
ssa lboti.-
—
dt ,h a r a ofthsjn e.
water.
CSisc a Theriging
1. At any point in the receiving
500 flet downstream ofthdtd ’
discharge point, the maximwva
allowable maease in turbidity over the
eaturat recoivuig . tr uu turbidity while
operating itS t flVs.
2. A vunel imisese in turbidity (an ’
cloudiness or muddiness) 500 feet
dow zeam of the suction dredge
during operation. would be considered
a vioIa na of the 5 NTU limit..
3. If noticeable turbidity does occur
500 feet dowast,eum of the work site,
operation of the suction dredge must
decrease or on that a violation as
d e thov, does not exist.
D.MQuitadzzg EequfremenL
1. Mech t Operations and
HydraulieRemuvul .1 Overburden
a.Duaingtheperiodbegirm i ngenthe
e iv. data of this p it end tastiop
until the expiration data, the following
monitoring shall be conductadi
h. Visual Impection
The Pesmfttee shall institute a
comprehensive visual inspection
program to facilitate proper operation
and maintenance of the raqidsayoiess
and the wastawater tres ent system.
The Pe,mittee shall
inspection of the site once pee day.
while on sits, dunngtha ‘ — “
The Permittas shalt “ “ “ erh of
all in ormation c.mlHngfroin.any visual
inspections. These records shalL inchida
an evaluation of the condition of alt
water control devises such as J. ion
structures and berms and alL lida
retention struc zras inf.I a(rng but. not
limited to. berm., dikes, pond
structures, and dams. The records shall
also include an asseesnieni of the
preonico of sediment buildup within
the settling ponda The Permitte. shall
examine all ponds for theocwi noe of
short draniting.
c. Turbidity Monitoring
The Peruzitte. shall azerutor the
turbidity values of the efflusur susam
and the natural background turbidity
values of the recei ing stream their
compare the two sample.. The sample
results shell be reported on the annual
Discharge Monitoring Report ID% P.
The Pennitree shalt take one sample as
a point that is representative of the
dintharge prior to entering the receiving
stream. The Permittea shall tab another
sample above the discharge paint at a
location that svm . 1 DJ to ha the
“natural” background of the receiving
stream am defined iii Permit Part YIILL
EPA baa recopizad the complex natum
of def r .thitng the paint above
“natural” background and upon request
will determine this point for the mines.’
In determining the sample point. EPA
will consider, with the input of the
perznittee and/or the Alaska Division of
Mining, geologic factora. drainage
patterns, armss. and the location of
active end historic 211m . I. ,
disttubancss. Bosh samplen shall be
taken within a reasonable time frame.
Monitoring shall be condwied in
accordaem with accepted analytical
procedures. See attachment i for
sampling proro :ol.
d. ArsenicMonitoring
Arsenic samples shell be
ieper sm Iieeof the discharge and she.
be taken at a point peior to -uig the
receiving stream. Arsenic samples takes
to dete u ‘natural” beckgroimd she
be mpsesentaiiv. of the rarmiving water
upstream ham any man .esade
distur a
turbidity. Monitoring shall be
ceMucted in camdaeee with ptec
anslytisal pre.i .i. &Lii . . The P ittas
shall open the sample r ”I’ on the
Dt . See a mant 2. far sampling
protocol.
The effluent limitation far total
recoverable arsenic is not quantifiable
using the F.PA uppruved analytical
method. EPA method 206.2. Thus. EP.
has set forth reporting threshold. to
measure the highest acceptable
quantifiótion level for this pare’ -.
This . . ‘tiog threshold does n
authorize the discharge of this
purnwee r in excess of the effluent
limkalio,r. For more frth,rmatioo, see
spcr:ial conditions in Peimil Part IX.
b The wa& dindrwpd sItal
not exceed the faflswtngr
t te7bdlly Meriiflca’don ermfreed t
— See Peind Part terdetain.
dischar are prohibited’
dining p ods wham new water is
allowed to enter the plant sate.
Additionally, there shall be no
EMtieot
P .Lni , 11 .,
M_I w,w Wqiaef icy
S çta t so
SetSeable Solicte QMt)
Iis iIy ( iTU)
Aisee ieJkJ tatal recoverable
Flow ( m) - —
Once per thy amt thy ot tin
-.
Once pat — —
Once
(a) — —
Crab
Gtab
amua
— ..........
EPue ’ nabiral ba greaad
‘E ietS nabimi baclqow ’4 —
EtSuerit
bet, obeit — Oplesi (2
‘Mat by EPA Method 2062 wOi a detection had at I
3 See Pot 1W. ?. ?. mr detade..
-------
Federal Register / VoL 59, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 31, 1994 / r4qtices
28091
e. Settleable Solids Momtonng
Settleable solids samples shall be
representative of the discharge and shall
be taken at a point priOr to entering the
recei’. ing stream. Monitoring shall be
conducted in accordance with accepted
analytical procedures (Standard
Methods, 17th EditIon, 1969). The
Permittee shall report the sample results
on the Annual DMR. See attachment 3
for sampling and analysis protocol.
f. Flow Monitoring
Effluent flow shall be measured at the
discharge prior to entering the receiving
water. Effluent flow shall be measured
at least once per day, for continuous
discharges. or once during each
discharge event if discharges are
intermittent. If measurement is
impractical. the operator must make a
good faith effort to estimate seepage
discharging to waters of the United
States each day that seepage occurs. The
flow shall be measured in gallons per
minute (gpm)..The flow measurements,
the number of discharge events, and the
duration of each discharge event shall
be reported in the Annual D?V for each
day of the mining season.
2. Suction Dredges
a. Suction Dredge operations shall
visually monitor for turbidity as
described In Permit Part D.C. once per
day of operation. The Perinittee shall
maintain records of all information
resulting from any visual inspections.
b. The Permittee will report the
period of suction dredging on the DMR.
Visual violation ocounences will also be
reported on the DMR along with the
measures taken to comply with the
provisions of Permit Part ILC.3.
ifi. Management Practices
A. Mechanical Operations and
Hydraulic Removal of Overburden
1. The flow of siurface waters (i.e..
creek, river, or stream) into the plant
site shall be interrupted and these
waters diverted around and away to
prevent incursion into the plant site.
2. Banns, including any pond walls.
dikes, low dams, and similar water
retention structures shall be constructed
in a manner such that they aie
reasonably expected to reject the
passage of water.
3. Measures shall be taken to asaure
that pollutant materials removed from
the process water and wastewater
streams will be retained in storage areas
and not discharged or released to the
waters of the United States.
4. The amount of new water allowed
to enter the plant site for use In material
processing shall be limited to the
minimum amount required as makeup
water for processing operations.
5. All water control devices such as
diversion structures and berms and all
solids retention structures cucb as
berins, dikes, pond structures, and dams
shall be reasonably maintained to
continue their effectiveness and to
protect from failure.
6. The operator shall take whatever
reasonable steps are approp4ate to
assure that, after the mining season, all
unreclaimed mine areas, including
ponds, are in a condition which will not
cause degradation to the receiving
waters over those resulting from natural
causes.
B. Suction Dredges
1. Dredging in waters of the United
States is permitted only within the
active stream channel.
2. Wherever practicable. the dredge
shall be set to discharge into a quiet
pool, where settling of dredge spoils can
occur more rapidly.
3. Care shall be taken by the operator
during refueling of the dredge to prevent
spillage Into public waters c i’ to
groundwater.
C Other Requirements
Mechanical Operations and Hydraulic
Removoiof Overburden
The operator shall maintain fuel
handling and storage facilities In a
manner which will prevent the
discharge of fuel oil into the receiving
waters or on the adjoining shoreline. A
Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure Plan (SPCC Plan) shall
be prepared and updated as necessary in
accordath t with provisions of 40 CFR
Part 112 for facilities storing 650 gallons
In a single container above ground. 1320
gallons en the aggregate above ground,
or 42,000 gallons below ground.
The permittee shall indicate on the
DMR If an SPCC Plan is necessary and
In place at the site and if changes were
made to the Plan over the previous year.
0. Stonn Exemption
The permittee may qualify for a storm
exemption from the technology-based
effluent limitations in Permit Part
ILA.1.b. and ll.B.1.b. of this NPDES
general permit if the following
conditions are met:
1. The treatment system is designed.
constructed and maintained to contain
the maximum volume of untreated
process wastewater which would be
discharged, stored, contained and used
or recycled by the beneficiation process
into the tredtment system during a 4-
hour operating period without an
lncreas In volume from precipitation or
infiltration, plus the maximum volume
of water runoff (drainage waters)
resulting from a 5-year, 6-hour
precipitation event. In computing the
maximum volume of water which
would result from a 5-year, 6-hour
precipitation event, the operator must
include the volume which should result
from the plant site contributing runoff to
the individual treatment facility.
2. The operator takes all reasonable
steps to maintain treatment of the
wastewater and minimize the amount of
overflow.
3Th sourm is in compliance with
the Management Practices in Permit Part
m .
4.The operator complies with the
notification requirements of Permit
Parts IV.G. and IV.H.
IV, Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
A. Representative Sampling -
All samples for monitoring purposes
shall be representative of the monitored
activity, 40 CFR 122.41 (j). To determine
compliance with permit effluent
limitations. “grab” samples shall be
taken as established under Permit Part
ll.D. Specifically, effluent samples for
settleable solids, turbidity, and arsenic
shall be collected from the settling pond
outlet or other treatment systems’ outlet
prior to discharge to the receiving
stream. Additionally, turbidity and
arsenic (for Option 2g samples shall also
be taken above the discharge point at a
locetion that is representative of the
receiving stream’s natural background.
Samples for arsenic and turbidity
monitoring must be taken during
sluicing at a time when the operation
has reached equilibrium. For example,
samples should be taken when sluice
paydirt loading and effluent dkrhAl’ge
are constant.
B. Reporting of Monitoring Results
Monitoring results shall be
summarized each month and reported
on EPA Form 3320—I (DMRJ. The DMR
shall be submitted to the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Enforcement Section
WD—135, Seattle, Washington 98101—
3188. no later than November 30 each
year.
If there is no mining activity during
the year or no wastewater discharge to
a receiving stream, the perinittee shall
notify EPA of these facts no later than
November 30 of each year.
The DMR shall also be sent to the
regional office of ADEC that has
jurisdiction over the mIne. The
addresses can be found In permit part
I.F.3.
e
I
-------
28092
Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 103 / Tuesday. May 31, 1994 I Notices
C. Monitoring Procedures
Monitoring must be conducted
according to test procedures approved
under 40 CFR part 136. unless other test
procedures have been specified in this
permit.
0. Additional Monitoring by the
Perrn ittee
lithe permittee monitors any
pollutant more frequently than required
by this permit, using test procedures
approved under 40 CFR part 136 or as
specified in this permit. the results of
this monitoring shall be included in the
calculation and reporting of the data
submitted in the DMR. Such increased
frequency shall also be indicated.
E. Records Contents
Records of monitoring information
shall include:
1. The date, exact place. and time oi
sampling or measurements;
2. The individual(s) who performed
the sampling or measurements:
3. The date(s) analyses were
performed;
4. The individual(s) who performed
the analyses;
5. The analytical techniques or
methods used; and
6. The results of such analyses.
F Retention of Records
‘the permittee shall retain records of
all monitoring information, including
all calibration and maintenance records
and all original strip chart recordings for
Continuous monitoring instrumentation.
copies of all reports required by this
permit. and records of all data used to
complete the application for this permit.
for a period of at least three yeara from
the date of the sample. measurement.
report or application. This period may
be extended by request of the Director
or ADEC at any time. Data collected on-
site, copies of DMRs. and a copy of this
NPDES permiL must be maintained on-
site during the duration of activity at the
permitted location.
G. Notice of Noncompliance Reporting
1. Any noncompliance which may
endanger health or the environment
shall be reported as soon as the
permiftee becomes aware of the
circumstance. A written submission
shall also be provided in the shortest
reasonable period of time after the
permittee becomes aware of the
occurrence.
2. The Following occurrences of
noncompliance shall also be reported in
writing in the shortest reasonable period
of time after the permittee hut nines
awirf of the circiutnstmu*”t:
a. Any unanticipated bypass which
exceeds any effluent limitation in the
permit (See Permit Part V.C.. Bypass of
Treatment Facilities.): or
b. Any upse which exceeds any
effluent limitation in the permit (See
Permit Part V.H.. Upset Conditions.).
c. Any violation of the effluent
limitations in Permit Parts lI.A. and 11.8
3. The written submission shall
contain:
a. A description of the noncompliance
and its cause:
b. The period of noncompliance.
including exact dates and times:
c. The estimated time noncompliance
is expected to continue if it has not been
correctec. and
d. Steps taken or planned to reduce.
eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of
the noncompliance.
4. .The Director may waive the written
report on a case-by-case basis if an oral
report has been received within 24
hours by the Enforcement Section in
Seattle. Washington. by phone. (2061
553—1213.
5. Reports shall be submitted to the
addresses in Permit Part IV.B..
Reporting of Monitoring Results.
H. Other Noncompliance Reporting
Instances of noncompliance not
required to be reported in Permit Part
NC. above shall be reported at the time
that monitoring reports for Permit Past
LV.B. are submitted. The reports shalt
contain the information listed in Permit
Part IV G.3.
t. t, p ct,on and Entiy
The permittee shall allow the
Director. ADEC. or an authorized
representative (including an authorized
contractor acting as a representative of
the Administrator), upon the
presentation of credentials and other
documents as may be required by law.
to.
1. Enter upon the permittee s
premises where a regulated facility or
activity is located or conducted. or
where records must be kept under the
conditions of this permit:
2. Have access to and copy. at
reasonable times, any records that must
be kept under the conditions of this
permit;
3. Inspect at reasonable times any
facilities, equipment (including
monitoring and control equipmentl.
praitii.es. or operations regulated or
required under this permit: and
4. Sample or monitor at reasonable
times, for the purpose of assuring permit
compliance or as otherwise authorized
by the Act, any substances or
pnro;iurters at any lo.ation.
V. Compliance Responsibilities
A. Duty to Comply
The permittee must comply with all
conditions of this permit Ally permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation
of the Act and is grounds for
enforcement action: for permit -
termination, revocation and reissudlice
or modification: or for denial of a permit
renewal application. The permittee shall
give advance notice to the Director and
ADEC of any planned changes in the
permitted facility or activity which may
result in noncompliance with permit
requirements.
B. Penaliws for Violations of Permit
Conditions
1. Administrative Penalty. The Act
provides that any person who violates a
permit condition implementing Sections
301. 302. 306. 307. 308. 318, or 405 oF
the Act shall be subject toan
administrative penalty, not to exceed
$i0.000 per day for each violation.
2. Civil Penalty. The Act provides tha
any person who violates a permit -
condition implementing Sections 301.
302. 306. 307. 308. 318: or 405 of the
Act shall be subject to a civil penalty.
rtot to exceed $25,000 per day fore ’” ’
violation. -.
3. Criminal Penalties:
a. Negligent Violations. The 7 .t
provides that any person who
negligently violates a permit conditior.
implementing Sections 301. 302. 306.
307, 308. 318, or 405 of the Act shall b
punished by a fine of not less than
$2,500 nor more than $25,000 per day
of violation, or by imprisonment for no’
more than 1 year. or by both.
b. Knowing Violations. The Au
provides that any person who
knowingly violates a permit condition
implementing Sections 301. 302. 306.
307. 308. 318, or 405 of the Act shall bt’
punished by a fine of not less than
S5.000 nor more than 550.000 per day
of violation, orby imprisonment for no.
more than 3 years. or by both.
c. Knowing Endangerment. The At t
provides that any person who
knowingly violates a permit condition
implementing Sections 301. 302. 306.
307. 308. 318. or 405 of the Act, and
who knows at that time that he thereb
places another person in imminent
danger of death or serious bodily injur
shall, upon conviction, be subject to a
fine of not more than 5250.000 or
imprisonment of not more than 15
years. or both. A person which
organization shall, upon convit
violating this subparagraph. be .. .ct
to a flue of not more th in 51.000.000.
d. False Statements. The At.t provicti
that ,uiy person who knciwingiy make-
-------
Federal Register I VoL 59, No.103 I Tuesday. May 31, 1994 / Notices 28093
any false material statement,
representation, or certification in any
application. record, report. plan. or
other document filed or required to be
maintained under this Act or who
knowingly falsifies, tampers with, or
renders inaccurate any monitoring
device or method required to be
maintained under this Act, shall upon
conviction, be punished by a fine of not
more that $10,000. or by imprisonment
for not more than 2 years. or by both.
Except as provided in permit
conditions in Permit Part V.G.. Bypass
of Treatment Facilities and Permit Part
Vii., Upset Conditions, nothing in this
permit shall be construed to relieve the
permittee of the civil or criminal
penalties for noncompliance.
C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not
a Defense
It shall not be a defense for a
pernuttee in an enforcement action that
it would have been necessary to halt or
reduce the permitted activity in order to
maintain compliance with the
conditions of this permit.
D. Duty to Mitigate
The permittee shall take all
reasonable steps to minimize or prevent
any discharge in violation of this permit
which has a reasonable likelihood of
adversely affecting human health or the
environment.
E. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The permittee shall at all times
properl perate and maintain all
facilities and systems of treatment and
control (and related appurtenances)
which are installed or used by the
permittee to achieve compliance with
the conditions of this permit. Proper
operation and maintenance also
includes adequate laboratory controls
and appropriate quality assurance
procedures. This provision requires the
operation of back-up or auxiliary
facilities or similar systems which are
installed by a permittee only when the
operation is necessary to achieve
compliance with the conditions of the
permit.
F. Removed Substances
Solids, sludges. or other pollutants
removed in the course of treatment or
control of wastewaters shall be disposed
of in a manner so as to prevent any
pollutant from such materials from
entering waters of the United States.
G. 8ypas c i Treatment Facilities
1. Bypass not exceeding limitations.
The permittee may allow any bypass to
occur which does not cause effluent
limitations to be exceeded. but only if
it also is for essential maintenance to
assure efficient operation. These
bypasses are not subject to the
provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this
section.
2. Notice:
a. Anticipated bypass. If the permittee
knows in advance of the need for a
bypass it shall submit prior notice. ii
possible at least 10 days before the date
of the bypass.
b. Unanticipated bypass. The
permittee shall submit notice of an
unanticipated bypass as required under
Permit Part IV.G., Notice of
Noncompliance Repoiting
3. Prohibition of bypass.
a. Bypass is prohibited and the
Director or ADEC may take enforcement
action against a permittee for a bypass.
unless:
(1) The bypass was unavoidable to
prevent loss of life, personal injury, or
severe property damage;
(2) There were no feasible alternatives
to the bypass, such as the use of
auxiliary treatment facilities, retention
of untreated wastes, or maintenance
during normal periods of equipment
downtime. This condition is not
satisfied if adequate beck-up equipment
should have been installed in the
exercise of reasonable engineering
judgtnent to prevent a bypass which
occurred during normal periods of
equipment downtime or preventive
maintenance; and
(3) The perinittee submitted notices as
required under paragraph 2 of this
section.
b. The Director and ADEC may
approvean anticipated bypass. after
considering Its adverse effects, if the
Director and ADEC determine that it
will Injet the three conditions listed
above in paragraph 3.a. of this section.
H. Upset Conditions
1. Effect of an upset. An upset
constitutes an affirmative defense to an
action brought for noncompliance with
such technology based permit effluent
limitations if the requirements of
paragraph 2 of this section are met. An
- administrative review of a claim that
noncompliance was caused by an upset
does not represent final administrative
action for any specific event. A
determination is not final until formal
administrative action is taken for the
specific violation(s).
2. ConditIons necessary for a
demonstration of upset. A permittee
who wishes to establish the affirmative
defense of upset shall demonstrate.
through properly signed.
conleipporaneous operating logs, or
other relevant evidence that:
a. An upset occurred and that the
permittee cen identify the cause(s) of
the upset;
b. The permitted facility was at the
time being properly operated:
c. The permittee submitted notice of
the upset as required under Permit Fart
IV.C., Notice of Noncompliance
Reporting and
d. The permittee complied with any
remedial measures required under
Permit Part V.D., Duty to Mitigate.
3. Burden of proof. In any
enforcement proceeding, the permittee
seeking to establish the occurrence of an
upset has the burden of proof.
L Toxic Pollutants
The peimittee shall comply with
effluent standards or prohibitions
established under Section 307(a) of the
Act for toxic pollutants within the time
provided in the regulations that
establish those standards or
prohibitions, even if the permit has not
yet been modified to incorporate the
requirement.
VI. General Requirements
A. Changes in Discharge of Toxic
Substances
Notification shall be provided to the
Director and ADEC as soon as the
permittee knows of, or has reason to
believe:
1. That any activity has occurred or
will o ir which would result in the
discharge, on a routine or frequent basis.
of any toxic pollutant which is not
limited in the permit. if that discharge
will exceed the highest of the following
“notification levels”:
a. One hundred micrograms per liter
(100 ugh);
b. Two hundred micrograms per liter
(200 ugh) for acrolein and acrylonitrile:
five hundred micrograms per liter (500
pg/I) for 2.4.dinitrophenol and for 2-
methyl-4, 6-dinitrophenol; and one
milligram per liter (a mg/I) for
antimony;
c. Five (5) times the ma. dmum
concentration value reported for that
pollutant in the permit application in
accordance with 40 cF’R 122.21(g)(7): or
d. The level established by the
Director in accordance with 40 CFR
122.44(f).
2. That any activity has occurred or
will occur which would result in any
discharge, on a non-routine or
infrequent basis, of a toxic pollutant
which is not limited in the permit. if
that discharge will exceed the highest of
the following ‘notification levels”:
a. Five hun4red micrograms per liter
( O0 pg/I);
b. One milligram per liter (1 mg/I) for
anhin onv;
1
I
-------
28094
Federal Register /Vol. 59. No. 103 / Tuesday. May 31. 1994 / Notices
c. Ten (10) tImes the maximum
concentration value reported for that
pollutant in the permit application in
accordance with 40 Q R 122.21(g)(7); or
d. The level established by the
Director in accordance with 40 R
122.44(f ).
B. Planned Changes
The permittee shall give notice to the
Director and ADEC as soon as possible
of any planned physical alterations or
additions to the permitted facility.
Notice is required only whem’ -
1. The alteration or addition to a
permitted facility may meet one of the
aiteria for determining whether a
facility is a new sauive as determined In
40 CFR 122.29(b); or
2. The alteration or addition could
significantly change the nature or -.
increase the quantity of pollutants
discharged. This notification applies to
pollutants which are subject eithar to
effluent limitations in the permit. nor to
notification requirements under Permit
Part VLA.1. - -
3. The alteration or addition will
significantly change the location, nature
or volume of discharge or the quantity
of pollutants, subject to the effluent
limitations, discharged.
C. Anticipated Noncompliance
• The permiftee shall also give advance
notice to the Director and ADEC of any
planned changes in the permitted
facility or activity which may result in
noncompliance with permit
requirements.
D. Permit Actions
This permit may be modified, revoked
and reissued, or terminated for cause.
The filing of a request by the permittee
for a permit modification, revocation
and reissuance, or termination, or a
notification of planned changes or
anticipated noncompliance, does not
stay any permit condition.
E. Duty to Reopply
lithe permittee wishes to continue an
activity regulated by this permit after
the expiration date of this permit. the
permittee must apply for and obtain a
new permit. The NO! should be
submitted at least 90 days before the
expiration date of this permit.
F. Duty To Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the
Director and ADEC. within a reasonable
time, any information which the
Director or ADEC may request to
determine whether cause exists for
modifying, revoking and reissuing. or
terminating this permit, otto determine
compliance with this permit. The
permittee shall also furnish to the
Di ctnr or ADEC. upon request. copies
of records required to be kept by this
permit.
C. Other Information
When the permittee becomes aware
that it failed to submit any relevant facts
in a permit application, or submitted
incorrect information in a permit
- application or any report to the Director
or ADEC. it shall promptly submit such
facts or information.
• H. Signatosy Requirements
• All applications, reports or
information submitted to the Director
and ADEC shall be signed and certified.
1. All permit applications shall be
signed as follows:
a. For a corporation: by a responsible
corporate officer. -.
b. For a partnership or sole
proprietorship: by a general partner or
the proprietor. respectivoly.
c. For a municipality, state. federal, or
other public agency: by either a
principal executive officer or ranking
elected official. - ‘
• 2. All reports required by the permit
- and other information requested by the
Director or ADEC shall be signed by a
person described above or by a duly
authorized representative of that person.
A person is a-duly authorized , -
representative only ifi -
a. The authorization is made in
writing by a person described above and
submitted to the Director and ADEC.
and
b. The authorization specified either
an individual or a position having
responsibility for the overall operation
of the regulated facility or activity, such
as the position of plant manager.
operator of a well or a well field,
superintendent, position of equivalent
responsibility, or an individual or
position having overall responsibility
forenvironmental matters for the
company. (A duly authorized
representative may thus be either a
named individual or any individual
occupying a named position.)
3. Changes to authorization. If an
authorization under paragraph IV.H.2. is
no longer accurate because a different
individual or position has responsibility
for the overall operation of the facility,
a new authorization satisfying the
requirements of paragraph Vl.H.2. must
be submitted to the Director and ADEC
prior to or together with any reports.
information, or applications to be signed
by an authorized representative.
4. Certification. Any person signing a
document under this section shall make
the following certification:
“1 certIfy under penalty of law that
this document and all attachments wer’
prepared under my direction or
supervision in accorrbinc, with a syst
designed to assure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evaluate -
the information submitted. Based on my
inquiry of the person or persons- who
manage the system. or those persons -
directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted
is. to the best of my knowledge and -.
belief, true, àccu ate, and complete. I am
aware that there are significant penalties
for submitting false information.
including the possibility of fine and
imprisonment (or knowing violations.”
L Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be
confidential under 40 C’R Pa z- i 2. all
reports prepared in accordance with the
terms of this permit shall be available
for public inspection at the offices of the
Director and ADEC. Au required by the
Act, permit applications, permits and
effluent data shall not be considered
confidential. - . - . -
,I Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall b.- -.
construed to preclude the Institution of
any legal action or relieve the permittr
from any responsibilities, liabilities.
penalties to which the parmittee is or
may be subject under Section 311 of the
Act.
K Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not
convey any property rights of any sort.
or any exclusive privileges, nor does it
authorize any injury to private property
or any invasion of personal rights, nor
any infringement of federal, state or
local laws or regulations.
L. Severobility
The provisions of this permit are
severable, and if any prevision of this
permit. or the application of any
provision of this permit to any
circumstance, is held invalid, the
application of such prevision to other
circumstances, and the remainder of
this permit. shall not be affected
thereby.
M. State Laws
Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve the permute.
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties established pursuant to any
applicable state law or regulation urn.
authority preserved by Section 510 of
theAct. -
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 103 / Tuesday. May 31, 1994 / Notices
N. Papeswork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements
imposed on regulated facilities in this
final general permit under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. 44
U S C. 3501 eS seq. The information
collection requirements of this permit
have already been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget in
submission made for the NPDES permit.
program under the provisions of the
CWA.
VII. Reopener Clause
If effluent limitations or requirements
are established or modified in an
approved State Water Quality
Management Plan or Waste Load
Allocation and ii they are more stringent
that those listed in this permit or control
a pollutant not listed in this permit, this
permit may be reopened to include
those more stringent limits or
requirements.
VU!. Definitions
A. ‘Active Stream Channel” means
that part of the channel thatjs below the
level of the water.
B. “Bypass” means the intentional
diversion of waste streams around any
portion of a treatment facility.
C. “Drainage Water” means incidental
surface waters from diverse sources
such as rainfall, snow melt or
permafrost melt,
D “Expanding Facility” means any
facility increqsing in size such as to
affect thealscharge but operating within
the permit area covered by its general
permit.
E. A “Grab” sample is a single sample
or measurement taken at a specific tune.
F. “Infiltration Water” means that
water which permeates through the
earth into the plant site.
C. “Instantaneous Maximum” means
the maximum value measured at any
time.
H. “Mine Drainage” means any water,
not associated with active sluice water,
that is drained, pumped or siphoned
from a mine.
I. “Mining Season” means the time
between the stail of mining in a
calendar year and when mining has
ceased for that same calendar year.”
J. “Monitoring Month” meani the
period consisting of the calendar weeks
which begin and end in a given calendar
iponth.
K. ““Natural” Background” means the
level upstream from all mining and -
other manmade disturbances.
L. “New Facility” means a facility
that has not operated in the area
specified in the NO! prior to the
submission of the NO!.
M. “NTU” (Nephelomethc Thrbidity
Unit) is an expression of the optical
property that causes light to be scattered
and absorbed rather than transmitted in
a straight line through the water.
N. “Make-up Water” means thet
volume of water needed to replace
process water lost due to evaporation
and seepage in order to maintain the
quantity necessary for the operation of
the beneficiation process.
0. “New Water” means water from
any discrete source such as a river,
creek, lake or well which is deliberately
allowed or brought into the plant site.
P. “Plant Site” means the area
occupied by the mine, necessary
haulage ways from the mine to the
beneficiation process, the beneficiation
area, the area occupied by the
wastewater treatment storage facilities
and the storage areas for waste materials
and solids removed from the
wastewaters during treatment.
Q. ‘Receiving Water” means waters
such as lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, or
any other surface waters which receive
wastewater discharges.
R. “Severe property damage” means
substantial physical damage to property,
damage to the treatment facilities which
causes them to become inoperable, or
substaptial and permanent loss of
natural resources which can reasonably
be expected to occur in the absence of
a bypass. Severe property damage does
not mean economic loss caused by
delays in production.
S. “Short circuiting” means
ineffective settling ponds due to
inadetj,’uate or insufficient retention
characteristics, excessive sediment
deposition, embankment infiltration.!
percolation, lack of maintenance, etc.
T. “Turbidity Modification” means
the procedures used to calculate a
higher turbidity limit based on a mass
balance equation which relates
upstream receiving water flow and
turbidity to effluent flow and turbidity.
The basic form of this equation is:
Q 1 C,+Q C 2 =Q C 3 ,
where C,=upstream turbidity;
C 2 =effluent turbidity;
C 3 =downstream turbidity after mixing
where the allowable increase is 5
NTU above background IC,+5
Ni h);
Q=streanm flow downstream from any
diversion and upstream from the
discharge;
Q effluent flow ; and,
Q,.total stream flow downstream from
disclv”ge alter complete mixing.
• A default value of 10 gallons per
minute (gpm) will be used if the
NO! states that zero discharge will
be achieved.
U. “Upset” means an exceptional
incident in which there is unintentional
and temporary noncompliance with
technology-based permit effluent
limitations because of factors beyond
the reasonable control of the permitlee.
An upset does not include
noncompliance to the extent caused by
operational error, improperly designed
treatment facilities, inadequate
treatment facilities, lack of preventive
maintenance, or careless or improper
operation.
V. “Wastewater” means all water used
in and resulting from the beneficiation
process (including but not limited to the
water used to rñove the ore to and
through the beneficiation process, the
water used to aid in classification, and
the water used in gravity separation),
mine drainage, and infiltration and
draina,ge waters which commingle with
mine drainage or waters resulting from
the béneficiation process.
IX. Special Conditions—Effluent Limits
Below Detection Levels
A. Reporting Levels
1. For purposes of reporting, the
Permittee shall use the reporting
threshold equivalent to the interim
minimum level (IML). The !ML is
defined as the concentration in a sample
equivalent to the concentration of the
lowest calibration standard analyzed in
a specific analytical procedure,
assuming that all the method-specit’ied
sample weights. volumes and
processing steps have been followed As
such, the permitlee must utilize a
standard equivalent to the concentration
of the IML for arsenic which is 3.18 tigl
L -
2. For the purpose of reporting on the
DMR, actual analytical results should be
reported whenever possible. All
analytical values at or above the IML
(rounded to 3 pg/L) shall be reported as -
the measured value, When the results
cannot be quantified, values below the
IML shall be reported as zero (0 pgJL)
B. Reporting Det oils:
Iii the “Comment” section of the
DMR. the permittee shall report the
lowest calibration standard used and the
ML achieved.
Attachment 1
Turbidity Sampling Protocol
1. GrJb samples shall be collected.
2. Samples shall be collected in a
sterile one liter polypropylene or glass
container.
3. Samples must be pooled to 4
degrees celsius (iced).
4. Samples must be analyzed within
48 hours of sample collection,
28095
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No 103 1 Tuesday May 31. 1994 1 Nc*i
Attachment 2
Arsen - ing P)Wocci
1. Crab samples shall be collected.
2. Samples shall be collected in a
sterile one liter polypropylene or glass
container.
3. Samples must be cooled to 4
degrees celsius (iced).
4. Samples must be sent to a
laboratory for analysis as soon as
possible.
5. Samples must be acidified with
nitric acid (UN03) . to a pH less than 2.
upon recsipt at the laboratory.
& Samples must be acidified for at
least 1& hours prior to analysis.
Att ’4” 3
Seuteabte Solids Sampling Protocol
1. Grab samples shailbe celL’i fed.
2. Sampler shall be ca11i M in a
stenle one liter pOI)ItJUu ,rIene or glass
container.
3. Samples must be cooled to 4
degrees celsius (iced ). if analysis is not
performed immediately.
4. Samples must be analyzed within
48 hours of sample cdllr ’os.
Settleabfe Sa l Ida Analysis Featocol
1. Fill an IáhoWaxie to the liter mark.
with a thomuglsiy mixed sample.
2. Settle for 45 minutes. then gently
stir the sides of the cone with a cod or
by gently spinning the cone.
3. Settle iS minutes longer, than
record the volume of sottleable matter in
the cone as milliliters per liter. Do oat
estimate any floating materiaL The
lowest measurable level on the Imboir
cone is 0.1 mU). Any sottleable material
below the 0.1 mI/l mark shall be
recorded as trace.
Ap 1 rulidh hNatM otletint
Infonnation
Perinittee Name
Address & Phone Number (Summer)
Acfdresn& Phone Number (WinterJ
Operator Name (jfdilIerent than
PWmftteel
Address & Phone Number (Summevi
Address & Phone Number IWinter)
Facility Name
Facility location (Nearest Town)
Mining District -
Latitude and Longitude
Township. Section. Range
Previous NPDES permit number
Receiving Water
Maxiimm , Effluent Flow
Summer Lowflow stream flow
Type olOperation (Traditional. Suction
Dredge. Hydraulicking)
Amount of Material processed
Signature and Date (certified according
to permit part VT.H.4.7
A drawing or cfrD%choftheop.untiun
(FR Doe. 94-73 FUse 5- 7- &4 5 amP
UCLRIe
EQUAL EMPLOYMENTOPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
Recordkeeping and Reporting Under
flUe and the ADA
AGENCY: Equal Employment
Opporturaty Commission (EEOC).
ACTICMt Estension of Expiration Date of
Currently Approved Colhiraiivt Witboot
Any Change liedea the Paperwerk
Reduction Ad.
SUMMARY: As required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act. the Fipmi Employment
Opportunity Commission is ciihmitting
to the Office of Mae ’ ’ and Budget
a request that it approve the extension
of the expiration date of its collection
requirements under its Recordkeepmg
and Reporting Regulations at 29 CFR
part 1602. Ho change is being made to
the existing regulations. Organizations
or individuals desiring to submit
comments far consideration by 0MB on
these infcTmatioe collection
requirements should eddies. them to
the Office ofinf mtfnn and Regulatcay
AffairS. 0MB Room 3002..Naw
Executive Office gnirdingweshing )on.
DC 20503: Attentiozu roseph Lackey .
For the , iiu .. - -
Karate A. BllHngsley.
Acting Direct cr. keuio9eaeMt
(FR Don 94-12924 Filed 5-fl— 8 43 mel
nuem cm i mo s
FEDERAL COMMUNiCATIONS
COMhESSIOII
Public fOrnIaIIOn CoI ctIcn
Require evils SIitmlliJ to Ofilceof
Managomanl and Bucf for
May 24. 1964.
The Federal Communications
Commission has submitted the
following information collection
requirements to 0MB los review and
clearance rnA r the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 198fi (44 tJ.&C. 3507).
Copies of these submissions maybe
purchased from the Commission’s copy
contractor. international Transcription
Service. Inc.. 2100 M Street. NW.. suite
140. Washington. DC 20037.f202) 857—
3800.. For further information on these
submissions contact Jud y Bolev. Federal
Communications Commission. (202)
632-0276. Persons wishing to comment
on these information collections should
contact Timothy Fain. Office of
Management and Budget. room 3221
NEOB. Washington. DC 20503. (203)
395—3 56t
0MB Number. 3060-0514.
Title. Sectoa 43.21(c) Holding Company
Annual Report.
Actioo Revision of currently approved
collection.
Respondents: Businesses or other for.
profit.
Frequency of Response: Annual
reporting requirement.
Estimated Annual Burden: 21)
responses: I hour average burden per
response: 20 hours total annual
burden.
Needs and Uses. The Commission has
adopted a Report and Order
eliminating the requirement that
carners file pesuioa and
benefits documents. The Order also
revises the revenue threshold for
certain affiliates to file the Securities
and Exchange Commission Annual
Form. 10-K reports with the FCC. The
FCC issued this Order to fulfill its
oblig ion to review reporting
re woments as they meet current
regulatory needs. The change wail
remilt in savingat. the pablic by
t.An thtg industry reporting burdens
and to the Commission by reducin
iha coal of processing these fllin
and m - ining them in storage. 1
information filed pursuant to Section
43.21(c) is used by FCC stail members
to regulate and monitor the telephone
industry end by the public to analyze
the industry. Selected information is
comp t d and published La the
Commission’s annual common carrier
, tctidal publication.
0MB Mueba 3060-0040.
Title: Application for Aircraft Radio
Station License and Temporary
Aircraft Radio Station Operating
Authordy.
Action: Extension of a currently
approved collection.
Form Numbem FCC Form 404/404-A.
Responderr Individuals or
households, stale or local
governments and non-profit
institutions, businesses crotber for.
profit (including small businesses).
Frequency of Response On occasion
reporting requirement.
Estimated Annual Burden: 28.000
iespoaees .33 hours average burden
per reeponse 9.240 hours total annual
burden.
Needs end Uses FCC Rules require that
applicants fil, the FCC Form 404
a new station license, renewal. o
modification of an existing beets..
An applicant filing for a new station
license may operate the aircraft radio
station pending issuance of a station
-------
Part It
Erwtron menta’
Prthectior Agency
R a( NPDES GeneraL P mlts to, N-
C ’ f t Co” 11 hg Water Dtsch rges ME
NHNo ke
Th—
•prW f
S
-------
22048
Federal Register I VoL 59. No. 81 I Thursday. April 28, 1994 / Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
(FR L —4W7-Il.
Final NPOES General Permita for Non.
Contact Cooling Waler Olechargss In
the States of P.foln ., Mesachusetta,
and New Kampsh lts
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTiON: Notices of final NPDES general
permits—MAG250000. MEGZ50000,
and NHG250000.
SUMMARY: The Regional Admini trator
of Region I is issuing final National
- Pollutant Discharge Fliminsition System
(NPDES) general permits for noncontact
cooling water discharges to certain
waters of the States of Maine,
Massachusetts. and New Hampshire.
These general NPDES permits establish
notice of intent (NOT) requirements.
effluent limitations, standards.
prohibitions and manngement practices
for facilities with discharges authorized
by the permit
Owners and/or operators of facilities
discharging noncentact cooling water
will be required to submit to EPA.
Region l.a notice of Intent to be covered
by the appropriate general permit within
180 days of the effecthe date of this
permit and will receive a written
notification from EPA of permit
coverage and authorization to discharge
under one of the general permits.
DATES ! This general permit shall be
effective on May 31. 1994 and will
expire five years from the effective date.
The authorization to discharge shall
become effective upon notification by
EPA that the operate. Is covered by this
permit.
ADOR 5F ’ Notices of Intent to be
authorized to discharge under these
permits should be sent to: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
NPDES Program Operations Section,
P.O. Box 8127, B n , M ’ 4 usetts
02114.
The submittal of ether information
required under this. permits or
individual permit applications should
be sent to the above address.
FOR FURThER IFORM&1l0N CONTACY:
Sharon Leitch. U.S EPA Region I.
Wastewater Management Branch. Water
Management Dlvision.WMN. John F.
Kennedy Federal Building. Boston. MA
02203, telephono: 617—565—3566.
SUPPLEMENTARY N RMATl0N:
I. Introd”i”
The Regional Administrator of Region
I is issuing final general permits for non-
contact cooling water discharges to
certain waters of the States of Maine.
Mit .rachuaetts, and New Hampshire.
This notice contains Iwo sets of
appendices. Appendix A summarizes
EPA’s response to major comments
received on the draft general permits
published on September 15,1992(57 FR
42572). Appendix B contains the final
general NPDES permits including Part
U, Standard Conditions.
IL Coverage of General Permits
SectIon 301(a) of the Clean Water Act
(the Act) provides that the discharge of
pollutants is unlawful except In
accordance with a National Pollutant
Discharge Fliminarlon System (NPDES)
permit unless such a discharge is
otherwise authorized by the Act.
Although such permits to date have
generally been issued individual
discharges in Region I. EPA’s
regulations authorize the Issuance of
“general permits” to categories of
discharges (See 40 CFR 122.28 (48 FR
14146. April 1. 1983)). EPA may issue
a single. general permit to a category of
point sources located within the same
geographic area whose permits warrant
similarpollution control measures.
The Director of an NPDES permit
program Is authorized to Issue a general
permit if there axe a number of point
sources operating in a geographic area -
1. Involve the same or substantially
similar types of operations; -
2. Discharge the same types of wastes
3. Require the same effluent
limitations or operating conditions;
4. Require the same or similar
monitoring requirements; and
5. In the opinion of the Regional
Administrator, are more appropriately
controlled under a general permit than
under individual permits.
Violations of a condition of a general
permit constitutes a violation of the
Clean Water Act and subjects the
discharger to the penalties In Section
309 of the Act.
Any owner or operator authorized by
a general permit may be excluded from
coverage of a general permit by applying
for an individual permit. This request
may be made by submitting a NPDES
permit application together with reasons
supporting the request no later than 90
days after publication by EPA of the
final general permit in the Federal
Register. The Director may require any
person authorized by a general permit to
apply for and obtain an individual
permit. Any interested person may
petition the Director to take this action.
However, individual permits will not be
issued for sources discharging non-
contact cooling water covered by these
general permits unless it can be clearly
demonstrated that Inclusion under the
general permit is inappropriate.
The Director may consider the
Issuance of individual permits whem
I. The discharger Is not In compliance
with the terms and conditions of the
general permit:
2. A change has occurred in the
availability of demonstrated technology
or practices for the control or abatement
of pollutants applicable to the point
source:
3. Effluent limitations guidelines are
subsequently promulgated for the point
sources covered by the general NPDES
permit:
4. A Water Quality Management plan
containing requirements applicable to
such point sources is approved; or
5. Circumstances have changed since
the time of the request to be covered so
that the discharger is no longer
appropriately controlled under the
general permit. or either a temporary or
permanent reduction or elimination of
the authorized discharge is necessary;
6. The discharge(s) is a significant
contributor of pollution.
In accordance with 40 ( R
122.28(b)(3)(iv), the applicability of the
general permit is automatically
terminated on the effective date of the
Individual permit.
IlL Desaiption of Non-Contact Coi
Water Discharges
The proposed general permits are for
(1) Massachusetts operators of any
facilities with non-contact cooling water
discharges; (2) Maine operators of
facilities with non-contact cooling water
dIscharges: (3) New Hampshire
operators of any facilities with non-
contact cooling water discharges.
NOn-contact cooling water is water -
used to reduce temperature which does
not come Into direct contact with any
raw material, intermediate product,
waste product (other than heat) or
ffniahed product Non-contact cooling
water discharges are similar in
composition even though they are not
generated by a single Industrial category
or point source.
The similarity of the discharges has
prompted EPA to prepare this general
permit When issued, this permit will
enable facilities to maintain compliance
with the Act and will extend
environmental and regulatory controls
to a large number of discharges and
reduce some permit backlog. The
issuance of this general permit for the
geographic areas desalbed below is
warranted by the similarity of (a)
environmental conditions. (b) State
regulatory requirements applicable to
the discharges and receivrng waters, and
(c) technology employed.
-------
ft .r I VbL 59 . N lii / ThliJ.y . ApriT 28. 1!94 F P &
industha9 y’ ’• k
est -flth t2dthaieà. W.thgi
hRv
e -;e : r raci
water. In the NswH tpâi
there are 178 ind istià}spp c.ti .r
pennittees. It is esti tDfi that. erar 38.
of the industries that have direct
discharges to ther eftheStat are
strictly nozcontact cooflngwater , kthe
Co nwuraaIth Massadnzset ther,
are 651 industrial appI nteor
pennfttees It i e ti wMI that omr2
of the industries that have direct
discharges to
strictly non Y t ct cooling water.
1v.’ d theC J U
A. Geogrrzpfifc Ar rs
Maine I MW wI(*. fl.
of the .C,. .L. . erta
general NP S r .t
locatedin thaSfate
resthcted tida Aztic14- ,
Water
dtha te
author by the gu!1! N?C per
for d chargemas the ( iamiera.e1th if
Msic wtZs ass
Co 1 . alth ‘ fCthe 5W
iestric è b et . aachug.t Suthc.
WazerQua sy SC ds. J4 4
(or as issd 1 . inc adi g 1c
4.O4 3 Pro tion of tstan g
Resou Watars
Ne MompshEe ! •-- N
NI O0O - A} if the d& h .-aveD b
authw. ..il by the guuevai l wass peczei
fer disahargersua &ate dPiser
Hampebirs am irta afl wctu oii the
State NwHai hia u e
otherwise ss ictsd b.yth. Sba. Watir
Quality Starsd d Plew Rampsh rRM
485—A$(e, aesssised).
B. Motificolinn 6y Pprm
Operatomoi
discharge. rardiscbssger. aam
cocliag W aDd etham
lo, in ’ geogrep ic s
desaib zePerB NA. absiwraay
submite Regibmi miw-.i ii p
Region. La aetice of intoit so
by the ap w i l — generaR poaxuis
within IS sah eUes dateof
the general pe The ihu
notification the s.r’se
operaters k------- .dàem the
facility amis sad ad I’ the 11 m. .K
and typo of_________
facili 5y i..o!(aka amp’
(or other r if ate apMcampie
not aeailab indicetbg the frciIty
iti%.Jhdl, t t (5ev Fart EJ an in the
State of Maina onfy aspeciafffst of
water 1 t d caIf usad the
facility.
Fac ries .1grata 4!fa U nce soe
New 1m cTur
covereLim fp, j 1
els a subm efarmaL ITh -M y,á
the notice of fn1 t thaz.ae h mi
additixesaxaucedin.thair aem coa&act
cooling water systems.
Each facility must also ceniàf that the
disrhiirg . comma erlelysi
cooling water. aoetherwaeso .
discharges will bepenniBa this
genera) pP TRiL
Lath is iHty wuataleemrIn t a
of tham eef i tseeeth 5 e
authority as appropriate ( see individual
state permits for appropriate authority
and adthese . -
The facXflt1 zerI’t &scbarg
underthe af 1 - dr vi i !
receive wr mnu i tieTL from A,
Region L with
Ffmetethimlto EF&Eà uzz Y.a
noticqafinteer to b wv ,r d andFar
failure cei e ar wdlZ
notification of pen t uv%I means.
thar the fbcil ry fr not authorized
discharge onderthisgeneref permit.
c. Efflaeet Aimit oes
1. Statutory
The Ciqan, Wata, (thehctl
prohibitsthed r] g af peLI’J..-i- - so
waters of thThi .. 5tetenibth . . . ,a
Na iii, l o IM L e
ElixninStion Sy m PDES r -. .- .
un sach adisrh10g inathe
auth ób the Act. NP S
PermiIisthemachannsrn seed to.
implement tedmalogy era ___
based effhient.14 fi ’—’ a a
requirements f bu4M amn ermg and
reporting. The NPDES .pennitwer
developed. iaaonardan with vernier
statutory and segelatonyauth. ._1L_..
e hhseth r et to Act. . The
regulations aming the EP& NEDES.
Permit program am generally &n at
40 F partr t 1Z4. t .and 136.
EPA is required to.censidev
technology and waterqen1 y
requftennents when dave4opfng per’nni)
limits. 4 CPR po25Subpaethsetw
the criteria and d L, . thee EPA meat
use to d u which t dimAogyi. .
based requuemen . requi vu nb
Secliare 30.T(bl’ of the Act and/in
requiliu 101 bestebiletied on a seby.
....awa ‘Ja’SMftI VI 1110
Act. auFd e inthe e . . , . . . t.
7 terAc# . ..;that al
discharges, at a minimere. maee neeI
effluent lizn am based en the
techwihigicalcap lUhy ddiacbage,s
to ii&J poif mnL m. their cbergs
Secti 3O 7)( )dtheIIc reqrnn
the . .IIm. . af3 et hj 5
( FI) wit& h. statutory rhaz fri
compliance being Ju ly L T. adam
otherwi sethoriaedby ths .
Section 301(W2)offtha .— -—- ’..the
applicatiomal B Cmlioad
.Co1 T hnAhcJ )fr,
conventional nsB ntg .andB
AvailablRethadogyf r .i .- aaeaI1
Athia eIMT)
and to poliua The c ntpn nro
deadline f.eB and flATinas
ernpedit e1 erpmctinoble in’ no
case later than threeysersaftavthedate
such, limüatieaa .a,e msnnlgaed and ii i
no cam later t.her March 31.. 1 8&.
2. Temafc p’ s .dEffl enr
EPA has ant rIT rnLTguiwr NAtcn!utt
Effluent Cuidelinat kia nnn .csoz
rmg water discharges. r &r 0t j ry
where Guidofln haire bean..
promulgaieL such as a i ai .tri
gPn.clp P Krn C ae4il part
4Z3J the i iiav of anJzn&uidua&
pørinit for tha&wlu vg c wouldbe ra
appropriate (Sin 40 CFR
122.2aQ li 3lfj)LCfl. Therefo as
provided in section 40261W of the Act..
EPA.bas cfetennfnedte issue this
generar permit utilizing best
pro(essfnnar idgemaatCEPfl to meet . the
above stated cafferfa far ffA]J
described in section. 304(bl aftha Act
The p11 hasbeen defined as a
conveatfonaf poflutanr A review of the
BCF regulat meno&thet ons in
inappropriate because (liThe pH is net
adjusted as nothiogbut heat iiadd ed to
the discharge and no cfiemicaf addllian.
unless approved by the State of Ma ine 1
or treatment is provided, and (ZT pIT.
even though ft is aconventionaf
pollutant, is not measured in pounds as
the other cdnventionaf pollutants.
3. Watar Quality RfIififfl ent -
Limitations
ThrderSectionr 3O NrXC7 of the Act
discharges are subject to effluent
limitations based a ir waterqnalfty
staiuiards and to the candfiionsof State
certification under sectimr40? of the
Acf. I cefving.eflesm reqeiiement are
estaed to-numericaf and
narrative standards adopted nnderstute
and/or federal law for each stzeaot use
classification Th,C VA requires that
EPA obtaizr Stet ’eerti&atfu,rwFrfefr
?. .I. e.l , , ..& ts J.
1a-4*thenamef. oIthn vzu
waters into which d asgewi
a determinati eat diathg 5 eat the
facility discharge will adveraaI aflact.&
listed or proposed to be.listed .
end c d or attwo!cnieciec or’•
-------
22050
Federal Register I- VoL 59. No. 81 / Thursday, April 28. 1994 / Noticá
states that all water quality standards
will be satisfied. -ReguLatlons governing
State certification axe set forth in 40 CFR
§ 124.53 and 124.55.
Section lOUa)(3) of the Act
specifically prohibits the discharge of
toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. The
States of Maine. Massachusetts. and
New Hampshire have similar narrative
criteria in their water quality regulations
- (See Maine Title 38. Article 4—A. section
420 and section 464.4.A.(4); -
Massachusetts 314 CvIR 4.05(5)(e): and
New Hampshire Part Env-Ws
432.02(c)(4)) that prohibits such
discharges. The permit does not allow
for the addition of materials or
chemicals in amounts which would
produce a toxic effect to any aquatic life.
Nevertheless, toxic effects may still
occur as a result of toxic source water
or due to dissolution of the piping in the
cooling water systems.
Non-contact cooling water discharges
do not contain or come in contact with
raw materials, intermediate products.
finished products. or process wastes.
Therefore, it could be assumed that the
discharges do not contain toxic or
hazardous pollutants or oil and grease.
However, based on the previous
statement regarding potential source
water toxicity, these discharges may
violate water quality aiteria established
for toxic or hazardous pollutants in
which case an indlvidualpermit would
be requiied. -
Water quality standards applicable to
non.contact cooling water discharges
covered by this general permit include
pH and temperature. EPA has reviewed
the water quality standards for pH and
temperature of each of the States and
has incorporated the appropriate
effluent limitations Into each permit.
4. Antidegradatlon Provisions
The conditions of the permit reflect
the goal of the CWA and EPA to achieve
and maintain water quality standards. -
The environmental regulations
pertaining to the State Antldegradatlon
Policies which protect the State’s
surface waters from falling below State
standards for water quality are found in
the following provisions: Maine Title
38, ArtIcle 4—A. Section 484.4.F.;
Massachusetts Water Quality Standards
314 Cv 4.04 Antidegradation
Provisions: and New Hampshire policy
RSA 485—A:8. Vt Part EnvWs 437.01
and Lay-Wa 437.02.
This general permit will not apply to
any new or increased discharge unless
it can be determined that such
discharges will result in insignificant
effects to the receiving waters. This
determination shall be made in
accordance with the appropriate State
Antidegradatlon Policies. -
D. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
Effluent limitations and monitoring
requirements which are included in the
general permit describe the
requirements to be imposed on the
facilities to be covered.
Facilities covered by the final general
permits will be required to submit to
EPA. Region 1. and the appropriate State
authority, a Discharge Monitoring
Report (DMR) contAining effluent data.
The frequency of reporting is
determined in accordance with each
State’s provisions (see the individual
State permits).
The monitoring requirements have
been established to yield data
representative of the discharge under
authority of Section 308(a) of the Act
and 40 CFR § 122.41(j), 122.44(i) and
122.48. and as certified by the State..
F. Endangered Species
Non-contact cooling water discharges
that may adversely affect a listed or
proposed to be listed endangered or
threatened species or its critical habitat
are not authorized under this general
permit without the written approval of
the Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the
National Marine Fisheries Service.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has
indicated that the dwarf wedge mussel
(Aiasnridonta heteredon). a Federally
listed endangered species, occurs in a
tretch of the Connecticut River from
Lebanon. New Hampshire to
Weathersfield Bow. Vermont, in the
Ashuelot River in Keene. New
Hampshire. and historically from a
number of rivers in Massachusetts. Any
facility whose discharge may adversely
effect the mussel or any other
threatened or endangered species or its
habitat is required to contact the Fish
and Wildlife Service at the following
addiess in order to make a formal
determination: United States
Department of the Interior. Fish and
Wildlife Service. 400 Ralph Pill
Marketplace. 22 Bridge Street. Concord,
New Hampshire 03301—4901.
The National Marine Fisheries Service
has indicated that the endangered
shortnose sturgeon (A ci penser
brevsrostrum) inhabits certain sections
of the Penobscot. Kennebec and
Androscoggin Rivers in Maine. and the
Merrimack and Connecticut Rivers in
Massachusetts. Any facility whose
discharge may adversely effect the
sturgeon or any other threatened or
endangered species or its habitat is
required to contact the National Marine
Fisheries Service at the following
address: United States Department ‘
Commerce. National Oceanic and
- Atmospheric Aihninittratlon, Na& -
Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat and
Protected Resources Division. One
Blackburn Drive. Gloucester,
Massachusetts 01930-2298.
• F. Other Requirements -
The remaining conditions of the
permit are based on the NPDES
regulations 40 Q ’R parts 122 through
125 and consist primarily of
management requirements common to
all permits. -
V. State (401) Certification
Section 401 of the CWA provides that
no Federal license or permit. including
NPDES permits. to conduct any activity
that may result in any discharge into
navigable waters shall be granted until
the State in which the discharge
originates certifies that the discharge
will comply with the applicable
provisions of sections 301, 302, 303.
306, and 307 of the CWA. The section
401 certification process has been
completed for all States covered by
today’s general permit. The following
summary indicates where additional
permit requirements have been added as
a result of the certification process.
The following changes apply to
States. Part Ill (Part 1.8.1. in the dra.
permit) Description of Non .Contact
Cooling Water Discharges has been
changed to include non.Gontact cooling
water instead of just cooling water in
the description. Part WA. (Part ILA. in
the draft) Geogrophic Areas has been
changed to include specific reference to
all state water quality standards which
would apply to the discharges covered
under the permit. Pan IV.8. (Part ILB. in
the draft) Notification by Permittees has
been modified to include specific State
requirements (see final permit). -
Massachusetts: see Appendix B.
Massachusetts General Permit. Under
Part I.A.1. (Appendix A.. Number 1. Part
LA.1. in the draft) the State has
included a provision for the flow
requirements in the final permit. The
provision allows for a discharge flow of
greater than I MCD to be covered under
the general permit on a case by case
basis as determined by the State (see
footnote in final permit). The discharge
limitations for pH have been modified
to include the requirements specific to
each water classification type (see Part
LA.i. or j. in the final permit). LC & C-
NOEC, the testing requirements for
whole effluent toxicity (WET). have
been changed. WET testing will onl)
required upon request by EPA and/or
the State (see Part LA.1.k. of the final
permit). Parts l.A.1.b, c. d & e have been
-------
added to the final permit, these
provisions are specific to the
temperature exceedance allowances in
accordance with the State water quality
standards. Any requirements referring to
Class C or SC water bodies Found In the
draft general permit have been deleted
since there are no Class C or SC
segments in the State.
New Hampshire: see Appendix B.
New Hampshire General Permit. Under
Part LA.1. (Appendix A.. Section c.. Part
LA.1. in the draft) the temperature limit
and designation for a warm water
fishery have been added under Part
LA.i.a. The reference for pH has been
changed to include specific State permit.
conditions (see Part LB. of the final
peraut). LC 50 & C-NOEC. the testing
requirements for whole effluent toxicity
(WET), have been changed. WET ’ testing
will only be required upon request by
EPA andlor the State (see Part LA.1.f. of
the final permit).
Vi. Administrative Aspects
A. Request To Be Covered
A facility is not covered by any of
these general permits until it meets the
following requirements. First, It must
send a notice of intent to EPA and the
appropriate State indicating it meets the
requirements of the permit and wants to
be covered: And second. It must be
notified in writing by EPA that It is -
covered by this general permit. - -
Any facility operating under an
effective individual NPDES permit may
request that the individual permit be
revoked and that coverage under the
general permit granted. as outlined in 40
CFR 122.28(b)(3J(v). If EPA grants
coverage under the general permit. EPA
will so notify the facility and revoke the
individual permit. -
Facilities with expired Individual
permits that have been administratively
continued in accordance with § 122.6
may apply for coverage under this
general permit. When coverage is
granted the expired Individual permit
automatically will cease being in effect.
B. The Coastol Zone Manag ment Act
The Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA). 16 U.S.C. if 1451 et seq., and
its implementing regulations (is R
Part 9301 require that any federally
licensed activity affecting the.coastal
zone with an approved Coastal Zone
Management Program ( fli be
determined to be consistent with the
CZMP. EPA. Region 1. has determined
that these general NPDES permits are
consistent with the C2MP. EPA has
received consistency from the
Massachusetts. Maine, and New
Hampshire coastal zone agencies for a
determination that these three permits
are consistent with their respective State
policies.
C. The Endangered Species Act
EPA Region I has concluded that the
existing discharges that obtain coverage
under this general NPDES permit will•
not affect or jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or
threatqhed species or adversely affect its
aitical habitat. EPA has submitted a
“no-effect” determination to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service to -
confirm this conclusion.
D. Environmental Impact Statement
Requirements
The general permits do not authorize
the construction of any water resources
project or the impoundment of any
water body or have any effect on
historical property. and are not major
Federal activities needing preparation of
any Environmental Impact Statement.
Therefore, the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act. 16 U.S.C. if 1273 et seq., the
National Historic Preservation Act of
1966.16 U.S.C if 470 at seq.. the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act. 16 —
U.S.C. if 661 at seq.. and the National
Environmental Policy Act. 33 U.S.C.
ff4321 et seq.. do not apply to the
Issuance of these general NPDES
VII. Other Legal Requirements
A. Economic Impoct(Executive Order
12292)
EPA has reviewed the effect of
Executive Order 12291 on this draft
gerie al permit and has determined that
It Is not a major rule under that order.
This regulation was submitted
previously to the Office of Management
and Budget for review as required by
-Executive Order 12291. The Office of
Management and Budget has exempted
this action from the review
iequlrements of Executive Order 12291
pursuant to section 8(b) of.that Order?
- B. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements
Imposed on regulated facilities by these
• draft general NPDES permits under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. 44
U.S.C. if 3501 et seq. The information
collection requirements of these draft
permits have already been approved by
the Office of Management and Budget
under submissions made for the NPDES
permit program under the provisions of
the Clean Water Act. No comments from
the Office of Management and Budget or
the public were received on the
Information collection requirements in
thesepermits.
22051
C The Regulator,’ Flexibility Act
After review of the facts presented in
the notice printed above. I hereby
certify, pursuant to the provisions of 5
U.S.C. § 605(6). that these permits do
not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, the draft permits will reduce
a significant administrative burden on
regulated sources.
Dated: April 6. 1994.
John P. DeVUlars,
Regional Adm ,n igtr etor.
Appendix A—Summary of Responses to
Public Comments on the September 15.
1992, Draft General Permits
One commenter expressed concern that the
general permits eliminate all effective water
neaiment programs for non-contact cooling
systems and that the permits surmised that
additives used to conti ol biological growth
-(blocides) are Inherently toxic to aquatic life.
The commonter su ested that EPA more
fully review all the technical aspects of
operating and maintaining cooling tower
systems before issuing the permit
As stated in the pennit. the purpose of -
general permits Is to extend environmental
and regulatory contiols to a large number of
discharge. and reduce some permit backlog.
It Is a ‘ han1,m through which the Region
can properiy regulate many of the minor non-
contact cooling weter discharges. It can
provide quick coverage to a large number
facilities. Time and resources do not allow
far individual review of each of th. facilities
cooling water systems and the types of
additives used. If a facility wishes ii may
apply for an Individual permit which can
address this Issue separately. -
One commenter from Now Hampshire
expressed concern regarding the pH
requirements for the permit. the cornmenter
was concerned that excursions of pH caused
by precipitation or Intake water are not
allowed. - -
The final permit requirements for New -
Hampshire do allow for pH excursions due
to natural causes as part of the State Surface
Water Quality Regulations (see the New
Hampshire general permit. Part B. State
Permit ConditIons).
- Appendix B—Final General Permits
- Under the National Pollutant Discharge
Flhnination Syulew (NPDES). -
Noter The following three general NPDES
permits have been combined for purposes of
this Federal Register. Parts LA. and LB. of
the pennhts are specIfic for each state. Parts
• LC. and l.D. are common to all three permits.
Massachusetts General Permit. Permit No.
MAG250 0 0 0
In compliance with the provisions of the
Federal Clean Water A . as amended. (33
U.S.C ff1251 t seq.: the CWA1. and the
Massachusetts Clean Waters In
Massachusetts. which i4i knwge solely non.
contact cooling water, as previously defined
- In Part UI, to the classes of waters as
designated In the Massachusetts Water
Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 81 / Thursday, April 28. 1994 / NotIces
-------
Fedail Register I VoL 59 . No. 81 / Thuisday , April 28. 1994 / Notices
. 4n ___ I th . .it th .na . menitseing raqu sweats
athar conditions set forth harem.
1 parmit shall L.. e effective when
_______ - -
Thin permit and the eutbcrhodou to
expire at midnight. five years from
tll.eflsctiye date of the Federal Register
geibflcation.
Operators of facilities within the general
ares who fail to notify the Director oI
their intent to be coveted by this general
_ mii and receive written notification of
— . - - ‘ coverage, or those who ax. denied by Past I
the Din. . are sot enthmL . ..d nader this
ge .and pseolt todledsaig. from those
facilities to the receiving waters or azeas
namet
Signed this Sib day of April. 19G4.
,idA. Pkrra.
Director. Water Manngerneat Division.
EnvrmertalPr & Uon Agency. Boston.
MA.
Andrew Coethob.
Director. Office ofWatershedManagement.
Bureau of Rescur e Th’otecbon.
Commom.e&th of Moas..chuortis. Boston.
MA.
A. Effluent Umltatfons asidMordtozfng
.:$ . eqtiitements
1. During the period ginning effect
• data and lasting through expiation. the
permitteels authorized to discharge barn
• each outfall of nan.omtect cooling water to
a drainage basin classified as a warm or cold
water fishery as designated below.
a. Such discharges shall he limited and
inonitoredby the permutes as specified
below
• kThonse intempentuseduetae
to Case A waters shall net xu,d
_VF(ae’Ch and ze al nnI and daily
. . a shall be 4 4nnd (314 OitR
4 xarn.
c.The rise In tempswtursduetoa -
•IL.r _ n. , to Cars B waters shall not wugnd
3?W5L7 ’a In rivers end designated
water fisheries non 5’? (2.S ’C) In
and soeams designated as warm water
ff il I (based on the minimum aipected
8 w tb, mooth) In lakes and ponds the
not exceed 3’? (L7 ’CI In the
eg aios (based on the loathly atag . of
______ daily teinperatuieb and natural
— ———-i and daily variations shall be
(311 ChIR 4 . 3Xb)2L
£Ihezimlntsw,...tu...dustoe ___
_____to Class SA ..ters shall set air4
3 .YV (arCh and natural and daily
— -“.-- - shall be m Ini 1ned (314 QIR
4 4Ia
s.1 rise In tempesatuseduetoa
____to Class SB waters shall not exceed
Lv?tarC) during the summer months (July
iiL . .nJ . Septemberl nor 4’? (2.2 ’C) dining
th... ule . months (October through June)
aid saI seasonal and daily vanatloas
thailbe maintained 314 CdR 4.05(4Kb)Z.
I This permit prohibea the addition of any
oeatnient chemical any pmpose to
atr onotact cooling water system.
4 lbarsshall be no discharge of floating
ealdeor visible foam In other than ttsce
b. Samples taken in compliance with the
monitoring requirements specified above
shall be takes at the poise of discharge.
L The pH of the effluent for discharges to
Class A and Class B waters shall be in the
range of 6.5-43 standard units and not more
than 0.5 units outside of the backgeound
rang.. Them shall be no change from
beckgiesnd conditions that wauld impair
any uses assigned to the receiving water
Class.
l The pH of the effluent foe discharges to
Class SA and Case SB water, shall be wib.
range of 6.5-8.5 standard units and not more
than 0.2 units outside of the normally
ocourring range. There shall be no change
from beckground conditions that would
impair any tame assigned to the receiving -
watarCiass.
k. One chronic (and modified acute)
toxicity test shall be performed on the con.
contact cooling water discharge by the
seTmnittee upon request by EPA s adler
MADE?. Testing shati be perfcamed in
accordance with EPA toxicity protocol to be
provided at the time of the request. The test
shall be performed on a 24.hour composite
sample to be taken during normal facility
operation. The results of the test (C-NOEC
and LC J shall be forwarded to Slate end
EPA wIthin 30 days after completion.
The t methods to follow are those
recommended by EPA foe the partcular
discharge In:
Weber, C I. at al.. 1989. Short Term
Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity
of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Freshwater Otgcnlmss. Second Edition.
Office of R .i2i and Development,
Oncinand. OH, E?A-80014-89-001.
Peltier. W.. and Weber. CL. 1985. Methods
for Mecsunng the Acute Toxiózy of Sf Jluants
to Fmahwnter and Manne Ggsnsmes. Thud
Edition. Office of R earda end Development.
Q n .4nnnti. OIL E?A/800!4-85/013.
Weber. C. I. at aL. 1988. Short Term
Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity
of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Ma,ine
and Eatuarine Organisms. Office of Research
and Development. Cincinnati, CE. EPA-400 1
4— e7l ffl&
B. State Permit Conditions
1. This Discharge Permit is issued jointly
by the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) end the Deperbasat of
Environmental Pru’—” -’ under Federal end
- State law, respectively. As such, all the terms
and conditions of this permit ale hereby
Incaiporaled into and constitutes discharge
permit Issued by the Director of the
Massachusetts Office of Watershed
Management pursuant to M.G.L. Chap. 21.
543.
2. Each Agency shall have the independent
right to enforce the terms and conditions of
this Permit Any modification, suspension or
revocation of this Permit shall be effective
only with mep ct to the Agency taking such
action, and shall not affect the validity c
status of this Permit as Issued by the oth
Agency, unless and until each Agency has
concuned in writing with such modification.
suspension or revocation. In the event any
Effluent characteratic
Discharge &iibsiom other tmits (specify)
O.n .Q re srements
.
Avg. Morfltsy
Max. Daily
Pd
Sample type
.______________________
Tesperaliser
m water f%shesy —
•
C water fishery”
1.0 MGD
83”F(28.?C) —
68’? 0 ’ C) _.
(‘) ...
( 2 ’s ._.
Ounsteity ._
Quastoity ._.
Quarterly ——
Totalizod daily.
4 grabs, Mt ..g irmat-
mum end average.
4 grabs reporting maxi
mum end meerasn vat-
ues .
24. l tour composite.
.
(1) ..
(‘) .
• ‘TIar Stare rimy allow coveirge under the general permit for thargos greater than 1.0 MOD on a coso by - n.p
“The d.8.4L at a cold at warm water fishery can be found in the Massachunetts Surface Water Chiabty StandardS . 314 ChIP 4.O6(1)(d)6.
4 6 (1)( 7. espeetwely. The desagnabon of a coat or omm wmer fahely simS be Stat which is pio’ .rJed et the Water Quality Stw ros
384 Q 4 (3),
‘Sespeitl.A.ticrj.
ISs.pertLMJ(.
-------
Federol Ragister/ Vol. 59, No. 81 / Thursday, April 28, 1994 I. Notices
portion of this Permit ii declared Invalid.
Illegal or otherwise Issued In violation of
State law such pannit shall remain In full
force and effect under Federal law sean
NPD Permit Issued by the U.&
EnvIronmental Protection Agency. In the
event this Permit Is declared invalid. Illegal
or otherwise issued in violation of Federal
law, this Permit shall remain in full force and
effect under State law as a Permit issued by
the ra muoow th of Massachusetts.
Maine General Permit. Permit No.
MEC .250000
In aunpilance with the provisions of the
Federal Clean Water Act, as amended. (33
U.S.C SS 1251 at seq.: the CWA1. operates,
of industrial facilities discharging solely nan-
contact cooling water, as previously defined
In Part Ill, located in Maine are authorized
to discharge to all water, of the State unleu
A. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
Requirements
1. During the period beginning on the
effective date and lasting through expiration.
the permittes is authorized to discharge from
each outfall of non-contact cooling water (as
deflned in Paragraph LA.1.L below) Into
fresh and marine water.
a. Such discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the permittee as specified
below:
b. The pH shall not be less than 6.0
standard units nor greater than 8.5 standard
units and shall be monitored monthly with
4 grabs. reporting ,nn hnum values (see
LA.l.l. below).
c. These shall be no discharge of floating
solids or visible foam In other than trace
amounts.
d. The effluent limitations era based on the
Stale water quality standards and certified by
the State.
a. Samples taken In compliance with the
monitoring requirements specified above
shall be taken at the point of discharge.
f. Definitions: —
Non-contact cooiing water is water used to
isduce perature which does not come
Into direct contact with any raw material.
Intermediate product, waste product or
Cn.h d product.
Non-toxic water becbnent additives are
rh.,,,ir Ii used In cooling water syrte
primarily to control corrosion or prevent
deposition of scale forming materials which
do net exhibit any residual toxic effect on the
receiving waters.
g, Discharge Temperature and Volume
The tamperuture and volume of the
discharge shall not exceed 120 SF and 3.0
millions gallons per day (MCD). The
arupiability of the total or combined aon ’
- “I-ii cooling waters from each facility
• must be determined using the graph on
FIgure 1. The Int dtion of the mavlm.m%
effluent temperature end the dilution ratio
shall be In the “ameptable’ range shown on
FIgure 1. titled “Effluent Temperature!
Dilution Graph” for coverage by the General
Permit Program. If the intersection falls
within the “non-acceptable” area, the facility
must be covered by the individual NPDES
Permit, not the General Permit Program.
The effluent temperature is the mexrmum
daily temperature. The dilution factor Is the
sum dfthe 7Q10 low stream flow at the
facility site and the daily maximum effluent
flow divided by the daily .n .admum effluent
flowjor facilitie, with multiple outfalls. the
daily maximum effluent flow shall be the
sum of the flow from all outfalls.
h. Water Treatment Additives
Non-toxic water treatment additives ire
allowed in non-contact cooling water
systems. The State of Maine will review each
Identified chemical to determine Its
acceptability. Additives used to control
biological growth in such cooling systems are
prohIbited due to their inherent toxicity to
aquatic life.
Residual chlorine discharges resulting from
the use of potable water supplies wifl be
exempt from this provision.
The following water treatment additive
biological and ch”r’ data must be
supplied In the letter of intent to be covered
by this general permit
(1) Name and manufactur, of each additive
used.
- (2) Maximum and everuge daily quantity of
each additive used on e monthly basis, and
(3) The vendor’s reported aquetic toxicity
of additive (NOAEL andlor LC, 0 in % for
typically acceptable aquatic test organisms)
All substitutions to the accepted water
treatment chemicals must be approved by the
-. State prior to their usage.
I. pH Control
- The pH of the emuent shall be between 6.0
to 8.5 standard units (s.u.) unless the sole
causepfexcwsion below 6.0 s.u. is due to
predpitetion or the low pH of the influent
water.
J. Total Residual Cirlorine
Potable water supply sources used for
coolIng water supply shall not contain Total
Residual Chlorine (TRC) at concentration
levels that induce a toxic Impact upon
aquatic Life within the receiving waters. The
instream waste concentration of TRC based
on the ratio of the emuent flow stream flow
go the 7Qao low flow of the steam shall be
less than the appropriate water quality
afteria for the receiving waterway.
ewes coca = . -
2205:
by fl J 35, M le 4-A. -. Signed thIs 6th day of April 1904.
Water Classificatloa Program. in eccordance David A. Fleira,
with effluent limitations, monitoring __
requirements and other conditions f .h Director, Water Management Division.
herein. No discharge into lakes Is authorized EroswientalProtecrion Agency. Boston,.
by this permit. MA.
This permit shall become effective when
Issued. a l l
This permit and the authorization to -
discharge expire at midnight five years from
the effective date of the Federal Register
publI tlon.
Operators of facilities within the general
permit ares who fall to notify the Director of
their intent to be covered by thIs general
permit and receive written notification of
permit coverage, or those who are denied
coverage by the Director are not authorized
under this general permit to discharge from
those facilities to the receiving waters or
areas named.
.
Efluent characteristic
— Inutmone other urets (epewiy)
Morstoring reqwements
Avg. monthly
Max, daily
N
SWI Ie type
Row (see lAl.g4 -
Terçeraturs (see IAI.g4
-
Total CNonno (see All.)
See Figure 1 —
See Figite I —
. •; .
Report
Monthly
Mcntr y
•
Quarterly ._.
Daily average.
4 grabs, repodin max ,-
nw and averages.
Grab,
.
,
Non- t cooling water may be dscharged only Into Class B. C. SB, and SC waters that have a alainage area lataai tiwi tan (10) square
ivies ii ac 4.ite . wati Mains Stat. Law. S .. Paragrapl LA1.g. for details detern .n , If Ste ep.aIir daicitarge(s) Mv. acceptable allution
and om be covered by the General Paint Program.. . -. - . -
-------
92
o .
0
E .
-.(.
0
F
Hi iJ it
Q 9 t
g.
-. 0.
z
I
I J .
1.
I
I
I
I
Li
EIU
‘4
0
• 120
• 110•
100
Etfluont 90
T.mp.
( ?)
80
70
60
PIGURE I
tf1uenLTempor$turo btiuttonGra h ]
I
I
I
I
0
50
ioô )50 ,•. 200
I Llutlon • (7Q10+Etfl. Flow)/Eftl. Flow
250 .300 350’ 400 450 500 550
-------
,1 .
Federal Regisfer f VoF 59 Na. 8 I Thursday. April 2 . t 4 F NoCf es
Dep 0 .t 1 ntand New 1 t of EnvL ....v taf Wma.Wbtas SUpply and a. The discharge sfiaabeIrm i.i4 and
Pollution ConOof Division. monitored as specified befow
EI?ijent thaia e. ic
Ciscriasge mItafioies w t (cpe
Pb .J
4 —
—
M
=
Sanç
Row. gpd ....
...._........
.3C_
Monf tI c ..... ....
MOII
........
. ..
Total daly.
i.
moe a avem .
4 , aw ’vq masi-
ai on m.ft
TerTVe a
Co nasa ,
WWtn T
p 14 —____ ..
.. . . . .. . ..
•.......
( I)
LC 10 & G-P EC. Va .._........
.. -— - —. -. -..
—
-
b. This permit dose not allow he the
addition of asty bioc er chemical he
purpose to the na
floetieg.’ l’i1 . visible kim. dshenor
visible pollutants.
d. The effluent Ilaitiations he temperature
and pH are based on the state water quality
standards and are ontified bythe Slate
a. Samples taken tocempfian wfth the
monitoring requ .. . . .. spedfied sheen -
shall betekmattbs potaiof dIscharge
I. f ie chnmlc land modified ecutel
toidcty shaD be p .d . . .. d o. nan
conta onoling wetaf dlschge by the
permitteenpon request by ‘P. indies the
N} T nig shall be In -
accordanc. with EP?. tuiuthyp. . .k ..J bbe
provided at the time of the rtçt t . Ths
shall be performed on a 24 bour composite
sample to be taken dining normal facility
operation. The results of the test (C-NOw ’
and LCd shelJbe forwarded to thaStale and
EPA wittun 3 days after cuinpleUon.
The test methods to Ibilow are those
recommended by EPA for the parlicurar
discharge im
We ,CL atal.. f98S fTis’m
Methods fcs £ anotMg the OuviricTaeiOty
of Efjhaealsw id Macawing Wales to
Freshwater Orgowsws. Seaind Ediram..
Office 0 f and. Develcp .
Cincinnati. OH EP -GOas#49 OQ
Peltiar. W.. and Weber . CL. 1.986. Mof,ods
for Measuring the AciOa T ” ’y of Efilnaiias
w Freshw rwaiMonseC*garsaosvs. Third
Edition. Office of Research and eil .. 51 .. . . . .i .
Cincinnati. OH. EP00 14-851013
Weber. CL et aL. 1988. ShorT Term
Methods fw F .at ..gthe lrkTesici y
of Effluents and Jta ,Ccn , . .. W s W rme
and Esluarine Organ:sms Oflionof Reeswnh
and Development. r1 tOtLEpA.4oW
4—871028.
8. StaerP . . .tCondMmm -
1. The Pw . .LttershaSmosplywfththe
following centhtlone h .rh are Included se
State Certification equhsesan
a. .me pH forclese B . ..e.. . shall bees-
8.0 S.U or as natmafly oman In the
ieceMngwet Thet5-80S.U. rangemust
be achieved In the final effluent unless the
permittee can deenonatestete the D,vfsaon
that: (lIThe range should be . .lJ d due to
naturally ‘ ‘ —in the
receiving watar as ZI the naturally crr .trrIig ,
source water pH is un” 1 ’ 4 lw
permittees operations. The scope of any
de aU.tIui prvfecf meat recofve peror
approval from the Division. In no care shall
the about p. .= -)=-- . mashes pft I ts lase
restrnton than any aypli Ie LJ . J
effluent limit g. _ A ii. .. . ..
2. thea NPD ir to
by the U.S. E . -. -----’ P ’— E1 A Cy
undeaFedmal d.S law.. Upon
Issuance by thEPA. the NJ1 - .5! . s
Deparoucat
Water Supply and
may adopt this Permit. lacluding, all t
and cpnditlons. as a state permit pursuant to
RSA 48S-A 13.EachA cy shill baeetho
independent right to enforce the tesma and.
conditions of this Permit. Any modification.,.
suspension or revacatian of this F It shalt
be effectiv,mtly with In the Agency
akirig such amino, and shaft not ecv the
validity or staturof the Ptu 11 lt ar a .uu dby
the otberAgency. airless and until each
Agency has concurred in w . tk with such
moth Ifoip, suspension er. tion. In
the event any partiou ofthls Permit I.
declared invalid, iITegeloi ’otharwrre in
vIolatig i of State law, such permit shall
remain m M I force and effect nailer Federal
law as an PWV FWrmiUssund by the US.
Environmental Protection Agency. In. the
e$ent the Permit is declared invalid. illegal
or otherwise issued in violation of Federal
law, this Permit. If adopted as-estate permit..
shalL remain in lull force and effectuadea
Slate law as aPthniZ i s sued. by the Slate of
New Hampshire.
- C Cozmaoa EIeJJWntsIbCAU ?Inmf
Monitoring’ ar -of Reporting Reqiñeniesds
Maine and Massachusetts: Mbnitnrlng
results ohtefued d the fi
months shall be suermarlzed he each quarter
and reported an separate Discharge
Monitoring, Report ForurM posauzarhod no
later than the tglhdayof the month
followIng the completed reporting period.
The . .uri ..em duean the 15th day of
January and Tuly The ffist report may
lndude less than S months
New Hanqmbire? Nfonitortng results
obtained dining the previous mouth. shaft be
5U .iu for each month and on
separate Discharge Monitoring Report
Form(s) puR uwk 5d no hear than the 15th
day of the month Ibffowi ag the completed
zwpu tlr!g period. The reports are dn a an the
15th day at the rm,ntfr foflowthgthe
period.
Signed copies of these, and . all other
reports sequfred herein. shaftbe submitted to
the DL .tu . and die appropriate State at. the
following addresseer
1. EPA Shall Becalve a Copy of All R.po a
Requued.Hoa
113. ..———--taI Agency .
NPDES Program Operations S.akai , PbS
OfficeBox8127 . .B ,Mk021i4
.. Dsflres1 UI
Eev teL hosamina
a. Regional whereIn the
discharge access, shall receive scopy of alt
repeats rsquhed hireto;
Massaji. . ..rtt3 De ofEnvironmenta!
FIti ..L dfl. Division of Water Pbtlutron
Control, Western RagfanalOffiae. Post
Office Bor ?4TO. Springfield. MA TTOT
Massethmattr Department of Environmental
P,f u.(Lw . Division of Water Pallutfon
Coutso?. Southeastern Regional Office.. 2ff
Riverside Thive. takevilte. MA 02547
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection. Division of Water Poibsion
ControL. Northeastern Regional. Office. 19
Commerce Way. Wobiasu. MA Ifl l
Mas hn .. ,tm Daparceent of Environmental
Prote wn. Division of Wat Pollution
Control. Central Regmoal Office. 75 Giova
Street. Worcester, MA 01605
b. All notifications and reports requlredby
this permit shall elm be submitted to the
Stats at
Mas t1tast Department of Envuonmenial.
Protecti on.. Offise ofWaiarshad
M. Dg.,,.c.re. . P.O. Box. t ’IS.. North Grafton..
.MA0 1536
3. Maine D . 1 ...L. . . ...& of Eiss enteL
Protection
Signed w 8 5 of aifre ts , . . J by
this permit shall be sent to the State at
Maine Department ofEhvtrorimental
ProtectIon. Operation and Maintenance
Division. State House. Station 17’. Augusta.
r
S.
M temwied by tile Near He Ash slid Gene Depaz et.
‘See Pail l.B.1.a.
See Part LA.I.l.
of
I
-------
Federal Register at VoL 59, No. 81 I Thursday. April 28. 1994 / Notices
22056
4. New Hampshire Depar ent of
Environmental Services
Signed copies of all reports required by
this permit shall be sent to the State at:
New Hampshire Deparenent of -
Environmental Services. Permits and
Compliance Section. P.O. Box 95.6 Hazen
Drive. Concord. New Hampshire 03302-
oo s
0. Additional General Permit Conditions
1. NotifIcation Requirements
a. Written notification of commencement
of operations, including the legal name and
address of the owner and operator nd the
locations, number and type of facilities and!
or operations covered shall be submitted:
(1) For existing d1wJi .ges within 180 days
after the effective data of this permit, by
operators whose facilities and/or operations
are discharging into the general permit area
on the effective date of the permit or
(2) For new discharges 30 days prior to
commencement of the discharge by operators
whose facilities and/or operations commence
discharge subsequent to the effective date of
this permit.
hi Operators of facilities and/or operations
within the general permit area who fail to
notify the Director of their intent to be
covered by this general permit and obtain
written authonzetlon of coverage ate not
authorized under this general permit to
lscharge from those facilities into the named
receiving waters.
2. Termination of Operations
Operators of facilities and/or operations
authorized under this permit shall notify the
Director upon the torminatlan of discharges.
The notice must contain the name, mailing
address, and location of the facility for which
the notification is submitted, the NPDES
permit number for the noncontact cooling
water discharge Identified by the notice, and
an indication of whether the noncontact
cooling water discharge has been eliminated
or the operator of th. discharge has changed.
The notice must be signed in accordance
with the signatory requirements of 40 Q 1 R
5122.22. - - -
3. Renotlficatlon
Upon reissuance of a new general permit,
the permittee Is required to notify the
Director of his intent to be covered by the
new general permit
4. When the Director May Require
Application for an individual NPDES Permit
a. The Director may require any person
authorized by this permit to apply for and
obtain an individual NPDES permit Any
Interested person may petition the Director to
take such action. Instances where an
individual permit may be required include
the following:
(1) The discharge(s) isa significant
conthbutor of pollution:
(2) The discharger is not in compliance
with the conditions of this permit;
(3) A change has occurred in the
availability of the demonstrated technology
of practices for the control or abatement of
pollutants applicable to the point source;
(4) Effluent limitation guidelines are
promulgated for point sources covered by
this permit
(5) A Water Quality Management Plan
containing requirements applicable to such
point source is approved; ur
(6) The point source(s) covered by this
permit no longer: - -
(a) Involves the same or substantially
similar types of operations: -
(b) Discharges the same types of wastes:
(c) Requires the same effluent limitations
or operating conditions -
(dl Requires the same or similar
monitoring; and
Ce) In the opinion of the Director. ii more
appropriately controlled under a general
permit than under an individual NPDES
—L
hi The Director may require an individual
permit only if the permittee authorized by
the general permit has been notified in
writing that an individual permit is required.
and has been given a brief explanation of the
reasons for this decision.
5. When an Individual NPDES Permit May Be
Requested
a. Any operator may request to be excluded
from the coverage of this general permit by
applying for an individual permit
hi When an individual NPDES permit is
issued to an operator otherwise subject to
this general permit, the applicability of this
permit to that owner or operator is
automatically terminated on the effective
date of the individual permit.
Part U. Standard Conditions
Section A. General Requirements
1. Duty To Comply
The permittee must comply with alt
conditions of this permit. Any permit -
noncompliance constitutes a violation of the
Clean WaterAct and Is grounds for
enforcement action: for permit termination.
revocation and reissuance. or modification;
or for denial of a permit renewal application.
a. The permittee shall comply with effluent
standards or prohibitions established under
Section 307(a) of the CWA for toxic
pollutants and with standards for sewage
sludge use or disposal established under
Section 405(d) of the CWA within the time
provided in the regulations that establish
these standards or prohibitions, even if the
permit has not yet been modified to
Incorporate the requirement -
hi The CWA provides that any person who
violates Sections 301,302,306.307, 308,
318, or 405 of the CWA or any permit
condition or limitation implementing any of
such sections in a permit Issued under
Section 402. or any requirement imposed in
a pretreatment program approved under
Sections 402(a)(3) or 402(bH8) of the CWA is
subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
325.000 per day for each violation. Any
person who negligent/y violates such
requirements is subject to a fine of not less
than $2,500 nor more than 325.000 per day
of violation, or by imprisonment for not more
than 1 year. or both. Any person who
knowingly violates such requirements is
subject to a fine of not less than 35.000 nor
more than $50,000 per day of violation, or by
Imprisonment for not more than 3 years. or
both. Note: See 40 R § 122.4 1(a)(2) f
additional enforcement alteria,
c.Anypersonmaybeassessedan -
administrative penalty by the Administrator
for violating Sections 301.302. 306. 307. 308.
318. or 405 of the CWA. or any permit
condition or limitation implementing any of
such sections in a permit Issued under -
Section 402 of the CWA, Administrative
penalties for Class I violations am not to
exceed $10,000 per violation, with the
maximwn amountof any Class I penalty
assessed not to exceed 325.000. Penalties fcr
Class U violations era not to exceed 310.000
per day for each day during which the
violation continues, with the maximum
amount of any Class II penalty not to exceed
3125.000.
2. Permit Actions
This permit may be modified, revoked arid
reissued, or terminated for cause. The filing
of a request by the pemuttee for a permit
modification. revocation and reissuance. or
termination, or a notification of planned
changes or anticipated noncompliance does
not stay any permit condition.
3. Duty To Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the Regiona.
Administrator, within a reasonable time, an’.
information which the Regional
Administrator may request to determine
whether cause exists for modifying, revoking
and reissuing, or terminating this permit. or
to determine compliance with this perrr’t
The pennittee shall also furnish to thi
Regional Administrator, upon request. .03
of records required to be kept by this permit
4. Reopener-Clause -
The Regional Administrator reserves the
right to make appropriate revisions to this
permit in order to establish any appropriate
effluent limitations, schedules of compliance
or other provisions which may be authorized
under the CWA in order to bring all
discharges into compliance with the CWA.
S. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed
to preclude the Institution of any legal action
or relieve the permnittee from any
responsibilities. liabilities, or penalties to
which the permittee is or may be subieci
under Section 311 of the CWA. or Section
106 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation and Liability Act of -
1980 (aRCLA).
6. Property Rights - -
The issuance of this permit does not
convey any property tights of any sort. nor
any exclusive privileges.
7. ConfidentIality of Information
a. In accordance with 40 Cl R Pail 2. any
information submitted to A pursuant to
these regulations may be claimed as
confidential by the submitter. Any such
claim must be asserted at the time of
submission in the manner presaibed or “le
application form or Instructions or, In
case of other submissions, by sfarnpin
words “confidential business Information’
on each page containing such information. If
no claim is made at the time of submission,
-------
Fq.tlneel Re I VoL 59.No.. 81/ Thw iay. April 28. I 4 I Nalce
EPA
the p.bia withoriilfiidhet *kn. tic
is asserted. the information wlfl be treated
accordaem with the p dams in
Part 2. (P 1ic iofwznation3 .
b. Claims s the
following jnf I 2t4r will bedanisé
(LI Tb. name and a ItIimca.oi any permit .
applicant er pei ea -
(ii) Permit applicatioas , permits. mid
elf bae data as defined In
§L302 (allZI.
c. nfonnatianeequized .bp P ES
appL QtItI t forms provided by the Raijemi
Mmmictra r under &122.2t may nash.
claimed “ aatiaLThla 1 ’
information submitted on the forms
themselves and any attarkn nftts used to
supply information required by the forms.
8. Du?yTaReepply
lithe p.rimttee wishes to n im. an
activiLy regulated by this p i& ris
expiration data. the permitS.. must apply ha
and a new pannit . The p.rm a. shelL
submits sew application at least 18 day ’.
before the expissfi dat oanletlng
permit, unless permie for & later date
been gsanted,b& the RegtoonLM sMIiaim.
(The Ragxcial M inasantmr shell i great
permisaion for appLi t1 in tebes.d ..i . .
later than the . xp’ ’ date at the s d.ainS
pereut.) -
9. State Authorities
Nothing in P 14122. 123. as fl4p—’• ’
more stringrot State e&l iiien at any activity
covered by them regutstk ,wbmtmicr
under an.approv.d Sates am.
10. Other Law,
The Issuance of a permit does. not
authorize any iniwy to persons or property
or invasion of other private ri bts. nor does
it relieve the permitteeof its obligation to
comply with any other applicable Federrt.
State. and local laws and regulations.
Section B. Operation and Afointanance of
Pollution Contietc
1. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The peemitta. shall at alL theespcepsñv
operate aod ” ’a1LfeaiIitiasaact
systems of treatmentandcentio& land related
appunenancesl which ma inatalleder need
by the pennittee toachiaver tanc2 with
the conditions of this permit and with the
requirements of ttorso wa ptdhM n
prevention plans. Propee opsanrion and
main’ also i.ttImlDadIq iotS
laboratory and appropriate quality
assurance procedures. This provmi s
requires the operation ofback-up or aseihary
facilities or ci .tar systezas only when the
operation is n Pc ry teach4mio mpI
with the coionsofthap ”
2. Need To Haltor Rarhica Net sD-”-
It shall notbeidefensefora perzrnttee in
an enforcement actfo that ft would have
been necessary to halt erredma the
permitted activity in order to maintain
compliancewfth the conditions afthis
petteR.
3. Duty To Mitigate
adversely i . 1Ia.
envizon m .
4. Bypass
a. Defwu7iona.
( T I Bypass the intanhit ! .kf
diversion of waste hem any portion
of a tv at cilIty.
(21 ‘Severe pmperty ti m gp •
uubstanti J physical “ ‘r or’r .
dAmagP’tó the tteatiuenLfoclIItiea hich
causes them to become fseiimable,oa
substaithai sad p _____
resou which can VsQaflfl hTy boa 9 .ôrta.d
to ocoir in the huanr . of a bypass. Seuere
property doer not mean e’ ”
loss caused by delays In production.
hi Bypors not ex di g The
peimittac emy allaw any bypmstnocotr
which does not cause flTii.nt .ft fig t
be exceeded, but only If It also
maintPn rQ f sssaaze ffir is ‘‘ ion.
These bypasses are net .P .j.l4 to the
provisions ofPara&epbsLs.c and 44 of this.
section. -
c. Notice.
(1) Anticipated b)pass.
If the permittee knows in advanonof the
need for a bypass. ft sPiel! submit prior
notice. if possible at least ten days befor . the
date of the bypass.
(2) Unanticipated bypass
The pennittee shall nabmi! notice dan
unanticipated bypass as required in
Paragraph D.1.e (21-hour notice).
d. Pruhibitionofby .i.
(1tB pass Is proM bited.. arid the Reglonaf
Admfefsfrstrw may tahe enlbrcement action
agafuste p . at finbypass. anfass
(a) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent toss
of life, personal irifury. or severe property
damage:
(b) There were no hesibla alternatives to
the bypass. such as the use of a liaxy
treatineAt feczfltiee. retention of nite.ted
wastes. i tàu during normal
per io of . . . . . wutduwuUwe.flh e
condition is not sutisflod if adequate back up
equlpmvut should have been instalt edla the
exucfse0f n bIe zli & LuJow m L
topwv ut a bypass which urred during
normal p 4 s of equi ,w . .s dowu( e or
preventive maIutGu ce; anti
(clii) The perruittee submitted . .uulce . an
required under Paragraph teal this section.
(ii?fleRealAJt .iLi may
approve an anticipated bypass , after
considering its adw cr1L b . if the Regional
Admirn rUat determines that ft will meet
the three conditions listed above in
Paragraph 4 dof this section.
5. Upset
a. Defln n. Upsei m an
exceptional iriddaizi iv which these is
unintentional and temporary aca camplianca
with technology-based permit effluent
lirn’-” .- - ’ of tess. , . beyond the
se h i at the pesmittee. An upset
does not induda ee upbami. toth.
extent by operational eseur.
irnproperlytb . v .i.i 4 neaseent facilities.
lnada . 5 aie treanoont foalitres, tack at
preventive or
unpmp apmaton..
day’onpaet Aw ..4IIuI .
an affirmative defense to.. action heaI I4
for n pliaeer with smib NcImule ’-
based perrais effluent Iheitetiemi if the
ii .atPteegieph B.5.c Of tide
se an em mat. Ndch tive made
dunagathniei ... iw,u ,.w ofdihnstfiet
wan caused by upset. end
before an ha nenonuplisece. Is find
ath, i . trv, action seb ect to judithl
review.
c. Condibensac .. . ..wy free
dez—f - - - -f-’ 4ujmat. A psrmittes who
wishes ta hIreh the afibmative dthwo at
upset shall demmissata. tinough property
signed. contemporaneous operating logs, or
other relevant evidence that:
(1) An upset occurred and that the
permittes h1v .tlI!y the cenae(sl of the
upset; ________
(2) The hothty ’ was at the thee
being pwpcwl Up 5 nhtaJ .
(3)Tbep .tte . .subraitTednntIceoftho
upset as required in P h Die arid T.e
(24-hour notice); and
(4) epe teee’cemplfod with my
remedial msaswes required under 9.3. -
d. Paed rcfproef
proceeding the neeseehoig to establish
the oanareasa-of an upset tbe burden of
prooL -
4Mn C.Jfoaiteriag ned ird
1. Monltort ResnnI
a. Sà w P , mid measurements taken for the
purpoer of It .L shaltbe representative
of the monitorer . .tl.Lt
hi E tfbrIGWI I of ruonltothig
information qu d by this permit related to
the peunittee’s sewage sludge use mid
disposal activities. which she
for a period of at least five years (or longer
as reçnred by 40 Cl PBrt 503?. the
permitta. shaD retain , m1s of a ll
momsolieg Imformelle .. dudbeg.lJ
celibretine mid mafatenence , c . L and alt
original se$pCb14rermdingeforceeatnuens
monitoring. L ioUu., , txipho deli
reports requhed by this perm9. mid rDiurdo
of all data mud tou pintetheepplicetlon
for thiapermit. for, period alit least Yyeers
from the dat, of the sample. iiw...urw,,.t .
report or application esteptfrrtin ’
infoiu..J ..r rmIceurAig onn ester
discharges ‘ .16th mast be retained fore feed
0)8 rear ,. This , ate tf n period may be
extended by raqi’.ateftheR l . . ..J
Admirristralor at any time
C. Records of rnonitcefag L1srnadon shalt
includer
(lIThe date, exact place, and time of
sampling ormeeeiueinernr.
(2) The individunift? who p .I& . 4 the
sampling ormearmeurents;
(3) The datels) analyse, were p d
(4) The IndivIdual(s) who p . .J . .4 the
an anetylical tedmiquns ermatheds
used:and -
(6) The renulte clench
d. Manitudag results must be. ,, .4i.ctuJ
according to test precedwes tinder
400R Past 136 or, in thocaseof sludge nan
or dispose?. pp . . . .. 4 under 4O(R t 136
unless otherwise specified iv 40 R Pert
- as ‘- sas 4 ,.—L ‘ . a dth1z
permit wbmh bee. & _ H kof
steps to ____ . aL any d1 h g .
-------
22058
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 81 / Thursday. April 28, 1994 I Notices
503. unless other test procedures have been
specified in the permit
a. The Clean Water Act provides that any
person who falsifies. tampers with, or
knowingly renders any monitonng
device or method required to be maintained
under this permit shall, upon conviction, be
punished by a fine of not moie than 510.000.
or by imprisonment for not more than 2
years. or both. Ifs conviction of a person is
for a violation committed after a first
conviction of such person under this
paragraph. punishment is a fine of not more
than $20000 per day of violation, or by
imprisonment of not more than 4 years. or
both.
2. InspectIon and Entry
The perinittee shall allow the Regional
Administrator, or an authorized
representative (including an authorized
contractor acting as a representative of the
Administrator), upon presentation of
aedentlals and other documents as may be
required by law, to:
a. Enter upon the perinitte&s premises
where a regulated facility or activity is
located or conducted, or where records must
be kept under the conditions of this permit;
b. Have access to and copy, at reasonable
limes, any records that must be kept under
the conditions of this permit;
c. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities,
equipment (including monitoring and control
equipment). practices, or operations
regulated or required under this permit and
d. Sample or monitor at reasonable times.
for the purposes of assuring permit
compliance or as otherwise authorized by the
Clean Water Act, any substances or
parameters at any location.
s— a Repailfeg Requirements
1. ReportIng Requirements
a. Planned changer. The permittee shall
give notice to the Regtonal Administrator as
soon as possible of any planned physical
alterations or additions to the permitted
facility. Notice Is required only when:
(2) The alteration or addition to a
permitted facility may Inset one of the
aiteria for determining whether a facility is
a new source In 40 R 122.29(b); or
(2) Th. alteration or addition could
significantly change the nature or increase
the quantity of pollutants discharged. This
notification applies to pollutants which are
subject to the effluent limitations in the
permit. nor to the notification requirements
under 4O R 122.42(aXl).
(3) The alteration or addition results in a
significant chang. in the penaltIes, sludge
use or disposal pr Hc. and such alteration.
addition or rhgnig . may justify the
application of permit conditions different
from or absent in the existing permit,
Induding notification of additional use or
disposal sites not reported during the permit
application process or not reported pursuant
to an approved land application plan.
b. Anticipated noncompliance. The
pennittee shall give advance notice to the
Regional Mminiitrator of any planned
changes in the permitted facility or activity
which may result in noncompliance with
permit requirements.
a. Tmnsf era. This permit Is not transferable
to any person except after notice to the
Regional Ai 4 ministrator The Regional
Administrator may require modification or
revocation and reissuance of the permit to
eheng . the name of the pennittee and
incorporate such other requirements as may
be necessary under the Clean Water Act. (See
§ 122.61: in some cases, modification or
revocation and reissuance is mandatory.)
d. Monitormg reports. Monitoring results
shall be reported at the intervals specified
elsewhere in this permit.
(1) Monitoring results must be reported on
a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) or
forms provided or specified by the Regional
Administrator for reporting results of
monitoring of sludge use or disposal
practices.
(2) If the perraittee monitors any pollutant
more frequently than required by the permit
using test procedures approved under 40 R
Pert 136 or. in the case of sludge use or
disposal. approved under 40 QR Part 136
unless otherwise specified in 40 R Part
503, or as specified in the permit, the results
of this monitoring shall be included in the
calculation and reporting of the data
submitted in the DMR or sludge reporting
form specified by the Regional
Administrator.
(3) CalculatIons for all limitations which
require averaging of measurements shall
utilize an arithmetic mean unless otherwise
specified, by the Regional Administrator in
the permit.
e. Twenty.four hour reporting.
(1) The permittee shall report any
noncomplIance which may endanger health
or the environment. Any Information shall be
provided orally within 24 hours from the
time the permittee becomes aware of the
circumstances.
A written submission shall also be
provided within 5 days of the time the
permittee becomes aware of the
circumstances, The written submission shall
contain a desaiptlon of the noncompliance
and its causr. the period of noncompliance.
including exact dates and times, and if the
noncompliance has not been corrected, the
anticipated time it is expected to continure
and steps taken or planned to reduce.
eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the
noncompliance.
(2) The following shall be included as
information which must be reported within
24 hours under this paragraph.
(a) Any unanticipated bypass which
exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit
(See § 222.41(g).)
(b) Any upset which exceeds any effluent
limitation in the permit.
(c) Violation of a maximum daily discharge
limitation for any of the pollutants listed by
the Regional Administrator in the permit to
be reported within 24 hours. (See
§ 122.44(g).)
(3) The Regional Administrator may waive
the written report on a case.by.case basis for
reports under Paragraph D.1.e if the oral
report has been received within 24 hours.
I. Corn plionce Schedules. Reports of
compliance or noncompliance with, or any
progress reports on. interim and final
requirements contained in any compliance
schedule of this permit shall be submittet.
later than 14 days following each schedut
date.
& Other noncompliance. The iii
shall report all Instances of noncom 1 , ,Lanc
not reported under Paragraphs D.i.d, D.1
and D.il of this section, at the time
monitoring reports are submitted. The leT
shell contain the information listed In
Paragraph D.1.e of this section.
h. Other infommtion. Where the perm:
becomes aware that it failed to submit an
relevant facts in a permit application, or
submitted incorrect information In a perry
application or In any report to the Region..
Administrator, it shall promptly submit si.
facts or information,
2. Signatory Requirement
a. All applications. reports. or informatii
submitted to the Regional Administrator
shall be signed and certified. (See § 122.22
• b. The CWA provides that any person w
knowingly makes any false statement.
representation, or certification in any recor
or other document submitted or required Ic
be maintained under this permit. includin
monitoring reports or reports of cornplianc
or non’compliance shall, upon conviction.
punished by a fine of not more than S1O.Ot
per violation, or by imprisonment for not
more than 6 months per violation, or by bo
3. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be
confidential under Paragraph A.8. above, a.
reports prepared in accordance with the
terms of this permit shall be available ir
public Inspection at the offices of th s
water pollution control agency andi.
Regional Administrator. As required by the
CWA. effluent data shall not be considered
confidential. Knowingly making any false
statement on any such report may result in
the imposition of criminal penalties ar
provided for in Section 309 of the CWA.
Section £ Oilier Conditions
1. Definitions for purposes of this permit
are as follown
Administrator means the Administrator or
the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, or an authorized representauve.
Applicable standards and limitotions
means all State. interstate, and Federal
tandards and limitations to which a
“discharge” ore related activity is subject to
including water quality standards, standards
of perfbr ” ”e. toxic effluent standards or
prohibitions. “best management practices.”
and pretreatment standards under sections
301.302.303.304,306,307.308,403. and
405 of CWA.
Application means the EPA standard
national forms for applying for a permit.
Including any additions, revisions or
modifications to the forms: or forms
approved by EPA for use in “approved
States.” including any approved
modifications or revisions.
Avesugefle arithmetic mean of values
taken at the frequency required for each
parameter over the specified period. Fo- “al
and/or focal coliforms, the average sh
the geometric mean.
Average monthly discharge limitation
means the highest allowable average of
-------
Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 81 / Thursday, April 28, 1994 / Notic 22059
“daily discharge,” over a calendar month. Discharge of a pollutant means: or coastal oil and gas exploratory drilling rig
calculated as the sum of all daily discharges (a) Any addition of any “pollutanr or or a coastal oil and gas developmental
measured during a calendar month divided combination of pollutants to “waters of the drilling rig) such as a seafood pio . .— - ng rig.
by the number of daily discharges measured United States” from any “point source,” or seafood processing vessel, or aggregate plant.
during that month. - (b) Any addition of any pollutant or that begins discharging at a “site” for which
Averoge week)y discharge limitation means combination of pollutants 10 the water, of the It does not have a pernut and any offshore
the highest allowable average of “daily “contiguous zone” or the ocean om any or coastal mobile oil and gas exploratory
discharges” over a calendar week, calculated point source other than a vessel or other drilling rig or coastal mobile oil and gas
as the sum of all daily discharges measured floating aaft which is being used asa means developmental drilling rig that commences
during a calendar week divided by the of transportation, the discharge of pollutants after August 13.
number of daily dIscharges measured during This definition includes additions of 1979. at a “site” under EPA’, permitting
that week, pollutants into waters of the United States jurisdiction for which It is not by an
Best Management Practices (BMPs) means from s Urface runoff which Is collected or individual or general permit and which is
schedules of aetivities. prohibitions of channelled by man: discharge. through located In an area determined by the
practices. maintenance procedures. and other pipes. sewers, or other conve rancee owned Regional Administrator In the issuance of a
management practices to prevent or reduce ny a State, municipality, or other person final permit to be an area of biological
the pollution of “waters of the United which do not lead to a treatment works: and concern. In determining whether an area is
States,” BMPs also Include treatment discharges throu h pipes, sewers, or other an area of biological concern, the Piginnid
requirements. operating procedures. and conveyanom ea ing Into pnvately owned Administrator shall consider the factors
practices to control plant site runoff, spillage treatment works,
specified In 40 CFR Sections §S125.122..(aXl)
or leaks, sludge or waste disposal. or This term does not Include an addition of through (10).
drainage from raw material storage. ‘ pollutants by any “Indirect discharger.” An offshore or coastal mobile exploratory
Best Professional Judgesnent (DPI) means a Effluent limitation means any restriction drilling rig or coastal mobile developmental
case-by-case determination of Best Imposed by the Director on quantities. drilling rig will be considered a “new
Practicable Treatment (BPT), Best Available discharge rates, and concentiatlons.of discharger” only for the duration of Its
Treatment (BAT) or otherappropnate “pollutants” which are “discharged from discharge In an area of biological concern.
standard based on an evaluation of the ‘ “point sources” Into “waters of the United ; New source means any building. stnictwe.
available technology to achieve a particular States,” the waters of the “contiguous zone.” facility, or Installation born which there is or
pollutant reduction, or the ocean. may be a “discharge of pollutants.” the
Composite Sample—A sample consisting Effluent limitations guidelines means a - construction of which commencedi
of a minimum of eight grab samples collected regulation published by the Administrator (a) After promulgation of standards of
at equal Intervals during a 24-hour period (or under Section 304(b) of CWA to adopt or performance under Section 306 of CWA
- lesser period as specified in the section on - . revise “effluent limitations.” . ‘ . which are applicable to such. .. ... -.. -
Monitoring and Reporting) and combined . D A means the United States - -. . (b)After proposal of standarda of
proportional to flow, or’ a sample . - “EnvIronmental Protection Agency.” - ‘ ,., performance In accordance with Section 306
continuously collected proportionally to flow Cmb Sample—An Individual sample ‘ - of CWA which are applicable to such source.
over that same time period. . , . co Iected In a period of lees than 15 minutes. ‘but only If the standards are promulgated in
Continuous Discharge means a “discharge”. Hazardous Substance means any substance ,accordance With Section 306 within 120 days
-which occurs without interruption designated under 40 G’R PartlI6 pursuant, of their’ proposal.
throughout the operating hours of the facIlity ‘lo SectIon 311 of CWA. - - - - NPDES means “National Pollutant
except for infrequent shutdowns for “ ‘ Maximum daily discharge limitation ‘ .Discharge ElimInation System.”
maintenance, process changes, or similar means the highest allowable “daily Non-Contact Cooling Water is water used
activities . discharge.” - to reduce temperature which does not come
CWA or ‘“The Act” means the Clean Water Municipality means a city, town, borough. in direct contact with any raw material,
Act (formerly referred to as the Federal Water county. parish. district, association, or other intermediate product, a waste product or
Pollution Control Act or Federal Water ‘public body created by of under State law finished product.
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972) and having jurisdiction over disposal or ‘ Owner or operator means the owner or
Pub. L 92-500, as amended by Pub. L. 95-’ sewage. Industrial wastes: or other wastes. âr operator of any “facility or activity” subject
217, Pub. 1.. 95-576. Pub. L 96-483 and Pub. an Indlap tribe or an authorized Indian tribe to regulation under the NPDES programs.
L. 97—117: 33 U,S.C. if 1251 et seq. ‘ . organizetlon, are designated and approved Penn,t means an authorizetion, license, or
Daily Discharge means the dIscharge of. nnnngement agency under sectIon 208 of equivalent control document Issued by EPA
pollutant measured during a calendar day or CWA. or an “approved Slate.”
any 24-hour period that reasonably Na onai Pollutant Discharge Elimination - Person means an Individual, association.
represents the calendar day for purposes of System means the national program for partnership, corporation, municipalIty. State
sampling, For pollutants with limitations Issuing. modifying, revoking and reissufrig , or Federal agency, or an agent or employee
expressed in units of mass, the daily ‘, terminating, monitoring and enforcing ‘thereoL -‘ - ‘ -
discharge is calculated as the total mass of - permits, and Imposing and enforcing - Point source means any discernible. -
the pollutant discharged over the day. For pretreatment requirements. under sections . confined, and discrete conveyance, including
pollutants with limitations expressed In ‘ 307,402,318, and 405 of CWA. The term - but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel,
tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure,
other units of measurements, the daily ... lndudes an “approved program.
discharge is calculated es the average -,. New discharger means any building, container, rolling stock, concentrated nnhnil
measurement of the pollutant over the day. structure, facility, or installation: . ‘ feedIng operation, vessel, or other floating
Director means the person authorized to (a) From which there is or may be a omit, from which pollutants are or may be
sign NPDES permits by EPA andlor the State. “discharge of pollutants”; discharged. This terra doe . not Include
Discharge Monitoring Report Form (0MB) (b) That did not commence the “discharge return flows from lrrig ted agriculture.
means the EPA standard national form, of pollutants” at a particular “site” prior to Pollutont means dredged spoil, solid waste.
induding any subsequent additions, August 13, 1979 incinerator residue, filter backwash, sewage.
revisions, or modifications, for the reporting (C) Which is not a “new source”: and garbage. sewage sludge, munitions, chemical
of self-monitoring results by permittees. Cd) Which has never received a finally wastes, biological materials, radioactive
DMR5 must be used by “approved States” as effective NPDES permit for discharges at that materials (except those regulated under the
well as by EPA. EPA wIll supply DMRs to “site”. AtomIc Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42
any approved State upon request, The EPA This definition includes an ‘lndlrect U.S.C if 2011 c i seq.)), heat, wrecked or
national forms may be modllled to substitut discharger” which commences discharging , discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt
the State Agency name, address. logo, and Into “waters of the United States” after and Industrial. municipal. and agricultural
other similar information, as appropriate, in August 13. 1979. It also includes any existing waste dIscharged into water. It does not
place of EPA’ .. - mobile point source (other than an offshore mean:
-------
PieaiI R*ter I VoL 59, No.81 IThiir day, ApTil 28, 1994 F Notices
• WSiwafr
tb) W , ores ma W which Is
Ii.j,rew.d a well to al1tets pivdociionof
oilergns.wueterdssliwl La
with oil and gas pniduUlrm and of
in swaB. if the wafi mad either te focilitate
production or for disposal purposes Is
approved by authority of thi State in which
the well Is located. and lithe Slate
determines that the Injection or disposal will
not result In the de adation of ground or
?rimwy 1nthjmy & .., any
j 0 h. 17 . -a- .-ry listed in the NROC
settlement (aid Rwo,izma
DJ C ctlet of. ,. ibm. 5 E.E.C 2220
(D.D.C 2976), modIfied 12 E.E.C I 3
(D.D.C 19791); eke fisted In Appendix A of
40 ( R Past 122.
fl ccss waslewoter means any water
which. during manufacturing or processing,
emma into direct contact withar results from
the production or use of any raw malarial.
Intermediate product. finished prodtrct.
byproduct, or waste product.
Regional Admmnimatar n” . ’ . the
Regional EPA. Region!.
Boston. M t 1iuaettu .
State means any dthe 50 States, the
District of Co ’. ” 1 da. Cm the
of Punso Rica the Virgin
Islands. American - ‘ ‘e . the Thrat Territory
of the P c IsLands.
S. . . ..4arybithrseyCalego,yin.eni any
Industry v u y which Is note primary
Toxic poIlubmt any pollutant bated,
utoxIetnApxDof eOaRPmtl22,
under Section 307(a*I) of CWA. -
UacardL. . 1 .aled storm wc is
precipitation to which no polbitnuts have
been added and baa. act e Into direct
contact with any raw material. Intermediate
product. west, product or finished product.
W,tori of the United Slate, meanar
(a) All waters which are currently used.
were used nthepast.ormaybe susceptible
to use In lat .rstatv or Ibreign cemmeme.
Indudiog all waters which are subject to the
ebb and flow of the tldr,
(b) All Interstate waters. t!rh.dh€
Interstate “wetlands.”
(c) All other such as intrastate ]akai.
rivers. s1r ( IncludIng lntmmittant
streams), rnudflats. sandilats, “wetlands”
slougha. prairie potholes, wet meadows,
playa lakes, or natural ponds the use.
degradation, or destruction of which would
affect or could affect Interstate or foreign
commerce, Including any such watma
• (1)Whichareorcou ldbeusedby
interstate or foreign traveler, for reoreatlunaF
orotherpurposes.
(3) Prom which fish or shellfish are or
could be taken and sold in interstate or
foreign corronerce or
(3) WhIch are used or could be used for
Industrial purposes by industries in interstate
commerce -
(d) All Impoundments olwatar, otherwise
defined as waters of the United StaI under
this definition;
Ce) Tributaries of waters Ident iBed l x
peregrapbs (a)-(d) of this d fi.i”1 ” . ’
(I) The tersftorl aes and -
InJ”Wetlands ” ad}acent to watma (other
than waters that are themselves wr land,).
Identified In peragraphs (a)-(Q of thIs
definition.
Whole Effluent T means the
a egete toxic effect alan effh.m, , . measured
dlrecUybyataxlcity test.
Wetlands - - - - those areas that are
Inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration suilIdent
to support, and that under “ a” J
dzcwnstanom do support. a prnvaleucad
vegetation typically adapted for life In
saturated soil PftlIIrIljt%1jL Wetlands geomally
Include swamp .. marshes, bogs, and.” ’ I—
areas.
2. AbbreviatIons when used ix this permit
are defined below:
on. Wday or M /day—cnbic meters per day
iugfl-rnilllgrmae per l
ug4—. ograms per U
lbs/day—pounds day
kg/day-hiiegrerns per day
Temp. ‘C— peratwe Ia degrees Centigrade
Temp. P—Iampesnone In £ es Fahrenheit
Thrb -ttxindity measured by the
‘Nephelometric Method (NTU)
is/the hydrogen ion
hat per omd
MCD—mllllongallansperdq
011 & Crease—Praise actable material
mlil—inillhllte,(sj per Il
Don. 94-9938 FlIed 4-2&-94 &4 5 soil
& sssco es -
-------
Part. VII
Environ mental
Protection Agency .
Combined Sewer OveTfiow (CSO Controt
PoUcy Notice
?besday
Aprtt t gg
S
-------
18688
Federal_Register / Vol. 59, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 19941 NotIces
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
(FRL.-4732-7 )
Combined Ss r Overflow (CSO)
Control Policy
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTtON: Final policy.
SUMMARY: EPA has issued a national
policy statement entitled “Combined
Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy.”
This policy establishes a consistent
national approach for controlling
discharges from CSOs to the Nation’s
waters through the National Pollutant
Discharge Flimin iUon System (NPDES)
permit program.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT’.
Jeffrey Lape. Office olWastewater
Enforcement and Compliance. MC—
4201. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M Street SW.. Washington.
DC 20460. (202) 260—7361.
SUPPUMENTARY INFORMATION: The main
purposes of the CSO Control Policy are
to elaborate on the Enviroornental
Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) National
CSO Control Strategy published on
September 8. 1989, at 54 FR 37370, and
to expedite compliAn c o with the
requirements of the Clean Water Act
(CWA). While Implementation of the
1989 Strategy has resulted in progress
toward controlling CSOs. sjgmflcant
public health and water quality risks
remain.
This Policy provides guidance to
permittees with CSOs, NPDES
authorities and State water quality
standards authorities on coordinating
the plnnning, selection, and
implementation of CSO controls that
u eet the requirements of the CWA and
allow for public involvement during the
decisionrn k4ng pi
Contained in the Policy are provisions
for developing appropriate. site-specific
NPDES permit requirements for all
combined sewer systems (CSS) that
overflow as a result of wet weather
events. For example. the Policy Lays out
two alternative approaches—the
“demonstration” and the
‘presumption” approaches—that
provide communities with targets for
CSO controls that achieve compliance
with the Act. particularly protection of
water quality and designated uses. The
Policy also includes enforcement
Initiatives to require the immediate
eliminjitlon of overflows that occur
during dry weather and to ensure that
the rempin ing CWA requirements are
complied with as soon as practicable.
The permitting provisions of the
Policy were developed as a result of
wttenswe input received from key
sa*fraholder, during a negotiated policy
dialogue. The CSO stakaholders
Included representatives from States,
environmental groups, municipal
orgtni tions and others. Then
dialogue was conducted during
Summer of 1992 by the Office of Water
arid the Office of Water’s Management
Advisory Group. The enforcement
initiatives, including one which is
underway to address CSOs during dry
weather, were developed by EPA’s
Office of Water and Office of
Enforcement
EPA issued a Notice of Availability on
the draft CSO Control Policy on January
19. 1993. (58 FR 4994) and requested
comments on the draft Policy by March
22. 1993. Approximately forty-one sets
of written comments were submitted by
a variety of interest groups including
cities and municipal groups,
envtronmentai groups. States,
professional organizations and others.
All comments were considered as EPA
prepared the Final Policy. The public
comments were largely supportive of
the draft Policy. EPA received broad
endorsement of and support for the key
principles and provisions from most
commenters. Thus, this final Policy
does not include significant changes to
the major provisions of the draft Policy.
but rather, It Includes clarification and
better explanation of the elements of the
Policy to address several of the
questions that were raised in the
comments. Persons withing to obtain
copies of the public comments or EPA’s
summary analysis of the comments may
write or call the EPA contact perSon.
The CSO Policy represents a
comprehensive national strategy to
ensure that municipalities. permitting
authorities, water quality standards
authorities and the public engage In a
comprehensive and coordinated
plAnning effort to achieve cost effective
CSO controls that ultimately meet
appropriate health and environmental
objectives. The Policy recognizes the
site-specific nature of CSOs and their
Impacts and provides the necessary
flexibility to tailor controls to local
situations. Major elements of the Policy
ensure that CSO controls are cost
effective and meet the objectives and
req Irements of the CWA.
The major provisions of the Policy are
as follows.
CSO permittees should immediately
undertake a process to accurately
characterize their CSS and CSO
discharges, demonstrate implementation
of minimum technology-based controls
Identified In the Policy. and develop
long-term CSO control plans which
evaluate alternatives for attaining
onmplL.n !i with the CWA. Including
compli n with water quality
standards and protection of desipatec 1
uses. Once the long-term CSO control
plans are completed. perinittees will b
responsible to implement the plans’
recommendations as soon as
practicable.
State water quality standards
authorities will be involved In the touR-
term CSO control planning effort as
well. The water quality standards
authorities will help ensure that
development of the CSO permitteee’
long-term CSO control plans are
coordinated with the review and
possible revision of water quality
standards on CSO-Impacted waters.
NPDES authorities will issue/reissue
or modify permits, as appropriate, to
require compliance with the technology-
based and water quality-based
requirements of the CWA. After
completion of the long-term CSO
control plan. NPDES permits will be
reissued or modified to Incorporate the
additional requirements specified in the
Policy. such as performance standards
for the selected controls based on
average design conditions, a post-
construction water quality assessment
program. monitoring for compliance
with water quality standards, and a
reopener clause authorizing the NPDES
authority to reopen and modify the
permit it it is determined that the CS(
controls fail to meet water quality
standArds or protect designated uses.
NPDES authorities should commence
enforcement actions gth..t permittees
that have CWA violations due to CSO
discharges during dry weather. In
addition, NPDES authorities should
ensure the implementation of the
min4qn technology-based controls
and incorporate a schedule into an
appropriate enforceable mechanism.
with appropriate milestone dates, to
implement the required long-term CSO
control plan. Schedules for
implementation of the long-term CSO
control plan may be phased based on
the relative importance of adverse
impacts upon water quality standards
and designated uses, and on a
permittee’s Rnanpaf capability.
EPA is developing extensive guidance
to support the Policy and will announce
the availability of the guidances and
other outreach efforts through various
means, as they become available. For
example. EPA is preparing guidance on
the nine minimum controls,
characterization and monitoring of
CSOs, development of long-term CSO
control plans, and financial capability
Permittees will be expected to coir
with any existing CSO-related
requirements in NPDES permits,
-------
F-. 4 I R I3 E F VoL 59. Ne. 75 / Tuee ay. Aprir 19. T9 t t NotIces
ms a
revised. imbe cginMStBlttWiththiS Policyi
Th p.lic).is organinarbas filk m .
L Inoodiictfon
A..Purpose anoPruicipl s
B. Apphi UanotPoIIc
C. Effect on Currast CSO ra w,,4 Thwi
D. SmaU.Syesmn Coaaid ations
E p1eomntetina .Rns h1 as
F. Policy Develcpmant
IL A Objectives ton ?omittaes
A. Overview
B linpi nxatlon.ofthe Nine Minimum
Cun olr
C. .en TermCSO Connol Plan’
L barsct&imUorz . Monitoring. and
Modeling aLtb& i . , , .h .ned.S,wur
Systems
2. PnblicPacip ”a .
3. rl .ftQ(ih. r 5 5jflfl oiSsnaitiva A u
4. Evaluation afAltemathres.
5. CosUFerfôrmance Consideration
e. OpemtsonarPtan
7. M üinnng Tructinent arthifPvi.tlng
orw T o ect Plane,
8. lmplementatioa Schedule
.Post C uascn Coinpriwic.
Monitor .Pm em.
IlL. Coordination Withi State WeterQuthtp
Standards
‘_Qverv_iaw
B. Water Qualit StanMrd Bavius.
IV Expectations for anttngAu k 4
A. Overview
B. NPD PinitRequiremente
1. l%ase.rP mtb—Reqmrem aue fin
Demunsnaiioeiof theNle , M(thmwn
Control. and DloptoFthe tong-
m r ’ p
2_Phase 11 Perrm —Eaqm ones r
Implemaniatianof e Long,tei CSO
ControL Plan
3. Phasing
V. Enlor erdBIliksd Compliance
A. Overview
B. Enforcement ofCSO Thy Weather
Discharge Prohibuica
C. Enforcement of Wet Weather CSO
1. Enfoscemeur frCbmplianc With Phase-
2. EnfuemmanttorComp1’ W th Pb ...
I L Permits
D. Panaltie.
List of Subjects 4OCPR Pest ?ZZ
Water poTuttha nntvnl
Auth.rit C1emiWetsT A 33 ’tIlS.C 1251i
etSeq.
Carol
AdministroJ .
Combined Sewer OverfTow(( Ol
Contr LPolicy
1. Introduct(on
. .PurposadP 141iripI
Them s i pafthiaPa yom
omhined SOrmbaw SO
Contnib Strategy ptzh i d. on.
S tombesL . 198 as R4 FR 17V0
Sttegyj ’rasd tn’espe1t _ .. .liescv
h the requirements c i the- Clean
WaterAct (CWh1: Wbi!e
isnpIemesztatloe- e the i9 S ore rher
resulted in pru 3 re a toward w &uIiiug
CSOs. signifitwnterquahtyrtsks
remain.
A combined s ers,einm (C S1 is a
wa .tewatereolTectlcuay,tvzu OwnclLtby
a State ot municipality (as de€ned by
section5oZf4j dtheCWA)which
conveys renitazy wast aIam (damestlc.
commercial and industrial wastewatera)
and storm water through a singIe fçe
system to aFublicly Owned Treatmenr
Works (POTW1 Tkaatinent Plant (as
dofineèin 40 CFR 40?.3rpJ7 A C Oia .
the discharge from a CSS at a point prior
to the ParWTreatnzans Plant C are
point sourcos subject to NPDES.pa i i+
requirements inclnili!Ig both
technology-based. and water qualliy-
based reqyire .mentaof the CWA. CSOa.
are not, subject tn secondary tveatm TtL
requizernaii$a applicabl. to. PO .tWs..
CSOn consist. of mixtures oEdumestic
sewage. industria l and.
wastawaters. and. storm wales runaff
CSOs ofien contain high le iels oL
suspended pathogenic
mfaoorganicTTia to,d pol.lutai 1a
floatables. nii ..oxygen,rI m .iHng
organic compounds. oil and .gseasa., mid.
other pitTaiti .nta . CSOs can cause
exceedanona of water qualiLy stanL1ards
(WQS). Such excsedan may pose
risks to hunmn.healtb.. threaten q m ic
life and its habitat. and .impasr the-us.
and enjoyment of:tlm Nations.
waterways..
This Policy inthiended.tsrproxtida
guidanc e to p.rniitt es with C Os..
Najjonal Fi,ITiit nt Discharge.
Fflmin2Iirla System lPfl_ESLrrmitdna
authorities.. Stare. waler quality
sthodtias.and a ma1*
authorities. The. purpose oL the PoLicy is.
to coordlnA thepI iIIer ttoTT
design anpent.aii n oLCSO
management pracfiom nd.contao1a in.
meet the mqjiiri mi .nt of the.€WA mid.
to involve the public fully duringthe’
, Im ’4 . .ii.,i ,,,Dfriflg prv .0
This Poky reitezaton.the ohjanthtes of
the 1985 t ntcgy: .
ITo ensurt that IL CS coma, they esw
only as a result of wet weather
2. To bring all wet weather CSO
discharge points Into w Llance with
‘tachnoLng3D.besed Wat er
____ the ’
CW& ann
3_teie nii’ti’ water q 1tp. . s. 1 uathc
blnt* and. him’ health impacts fives.
CSOs.
This CSOOmtIOI Policy represents a
J na al etegyt
enome that muzziclpalitien pomrttlng
authorities. water quality stendards
authorities and the public eugage inn
comprehensive and coosdlnatetf
plng efibitto achieve cost-eflhctiva
cso controls that uIHmmi.ty meet
appropriate health and en rironmnntaL
obj ctivea and zeqniremnnts. The Policy
recognizes the slta-specr& nsthi, .oL
CSOn .aiui their Impacts. and. provulas
the necessary ffaeshffiLy tatMIer
controls to Four key
princfpteaofthePoky ensure thaLCSQ.
controls am coa•efThriv. and.meet the
objectives oLtha OVA.. The. key
principres am:
1. Pzevidingc]ear kevels.eLcentrobthat
would bepomumed.tnmeeti
appropriatebeahh and as3 ,w ..-. ’ .-.’-
objectives;
2 . ding ufficientiTexibility to
mnnicipalities especially financially
di&res to. -
cmTti lPP the sitespecific nature of
CSOs antte- datermine th, most cost-
effective means of seducing pollutants
an me .tingOYA objectivesand
raquireraente
3. Allcutingaphaaed.approeth.to
implementatio n of C$O.controle
considering ocommunityb financial
capability; and
4. Review and revision. te appropriate.
of water quafltystandards and their
implamesstathnr iñocwtfurer when
developing c ffiu1 plans to-
reflect the si e-specf B a wet weather
impact of CSOe.
This Policy is being Issued In support
oFEPA regulations and policy
iultldlvec. This Pblicy is Agency
guid anl and does nor establish or
affecrleget rights orobligatfons. does
not establish abhicflngnarm and.is not
finally determinative of the issues.
addressed gency decisions La any
particularcase will be macieby appryin&
the law and regjzlutfons on the basis of
speciffctocts when permits.am Issued..
The Administration has ‘nmmended
that the T9g . amendment. to the CWA.
endorse this final Pblicy.
8. AppliatinmofPo1ic
The dtt v ronr of this
PoiicyappI in all. CSS, that overflow
as aresuir of storm water flow.
1nch sd lnmowmeltauuuff(40 R
122.26(b t3fl. Discharges from CSS,
durmg th weather are prohibited by
the CWA. Aceardlagjy. the- perzzzittthg
ofthfs Policy do notapply t
CS du ing thyweather. Thy weather
flow’frthe’ffowina combined sewer
tharressr ltsfronrdumest lc mirage.
groundwater infiltrath,iz, commercial
and industrial wastewasers and any
aths. mfls.fiflftfltlOIT ,eletwf fhiwc
e
ia i
-------
18690
Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 1994 / Notices
the permitting provisions, the
Enforcement and Compliance section of
this Policy describes an enforcement
initiative being developed for overflows
that occur during dry weather.
Consistent with the 1989.Strategy, 30
States that submitted C O permitting
strategies have received EPA approval
or. in the case of one State. conditional
approval of Its strategy. States and EPA
Regional Offices should review these
strategies and negotiate appropriate
revisions to them to implement this
Policy. Permitting authorities are
encouraged to evaluate water pollution
control needs on a watershed
management basis and coordinate CSO
control efforts with other point and
nonpoint source control activities.
C. Effect on Current CSO Control Efforts
EPA recognims that extensive work
has been done by many Regions. States.
and municipalities to abate CSOs. As
such, portions of this Policy may
already have been addressed by
pemrittees previous efforts to control
CSOs. Therefore, portions of this Policy
may not apply, as determined by the
permitting authority on a case-by-case
basis, under the following
circumstances:
1. Any permittee that, on the date of
publication of this final Policy, has
completed or substantially completed
construction of CSO control facilities
that are designed to meet WQS and
protect designated uses, and where it
has been determined that WQS are
being or will be attained, is not covired
by the initial planning and construction
provisions in this Policy; however, the
operational plan and post-construction
monitoring provisions continue to
apply. U. after monitoring, it Is
determined that WQS are not being
attained, the permittee should be
required to submit a revised CSO
control plan that, once implemented.
will attain WQS,
2. Any pelmittee that, on the date of
publication of this final Policy, has
substantially developed or Is
implementing a CSO control program
pursuant to an existing permit or
enforcement order, and such program is
considered by the NPDES permitting
authority to be adequate to meet WQS
and protect designated uses and Is
reasonably equivalent to the treatment
objectives of this Policy. should
complete those facilities without further
planning activities otherwise expected
by this Policy. Such programs. however.
shouldbeg ev lewedandmodlfledtobe
consistent with the sensitive area.
financial capability, and post.
construction monitoring provisions of
this Policy.
3.Any permittee that has previously
constructed CSO control facilities in an
effort to comply with WQS but has
failed to meet such applicable standards
or top designated uses due to
finaining CSOs may receive
consideration for such efforts In future
permits or enforceable orders for long-
term CSO control planning, design and
Implementation.
In the case of any ongoing or
substantially completed CSO control
effort, the NPDES permit or other
enforceable me -hanl n. as appropriate,
should be revised to include all
appropriate permit requirements
consistent with Section NB. of this
Policy.
D. Small System Conslderatlous
The scope of the long-term CSO
control plan, Including the
characterization, monitoring and
modeling, and evaluation of alternatives
portions of this Policy may be difficult
for some small CSSs. At the discretion
of the NPDES Authority. jurisdictions
with populations under 75.000 may not
need to complete each of the formal
steps outlined in Section 1I.C. of this
Policy, but should be required through
their permits or other enforceable
mechanisms to comply with the nine
minimum controls (U.B). public
participation (ILC2), and sensitive areas
(ILC.3) portions of this Policy. In
addition, the permittee may propose to
Implement any of the criteria contained
In this Policy for evaluation of
alternatives described in II.C4.
Following approval of the proposed
plan, such jurisdictions should
construct the control protects and
propose a monitoring program sufficient
to determine whether WQS are attained
and designated uses are protected.
In developing long-term CSO control
plans based on the small system
considerations discussed In the
preceding paragraph, permittees are
encouraged to discuss the scope of their
long-term CSO control plan with the
WQS authority and the NPDES
authority. These discussions will ensure
that the plan Includes sufficient
information to enable the permitting
authority to identify the appropriate
CSO controls.
E. Implementation Responsibilities
NPDES authorities (authorized States
or EPA Regional Offices. as appropriate)
are responsible for implementing this
Policy. It is their responsibility to assure
that CSO permlttees develop long-term
CSO control plans and that NPDES
permits meet the requirements of the
CWA. Further, they are responsible for
coordinating the review of the long-term
C5O control plan and the development
of the permit with the WQS authority tr
determine 11 revisions to the WQS aze
appropriate, In addition, they should
determine the appropriate vehicle (Le..
permit zeisauance, Information request
under CWA section 308 or State
equivalent or enforcement action) to
ensure that compliance with the CWA is
achieved as soon as practicable. -
Perinittees are responsible for
documenting the Implementation of the
nine minimum controls and developing
and implementing a long-term CSO
control plan, as described In this Policy.
EPA recognI’ c that financial
considerations are a major factor
affecting the implementation of CSO
controls. For that reason, this Policy
allows consideration of a pormittee’s
financial capability in connection with
the long-term CSO control planning
effort, WQS review, and negotiation of
enforceable schedules. However, each
permittee is ultimately responsible for
aggressively pursuing financial
arrangements for the implementation of
Us long-term CSO control plan. As part
of this effort, communities should apply
to their State Revolving Fund program.
or other assistance programs as
appropriate. for financial assistance.
EPA and the States will undertake
action to assure that all perinittees wit’
CSSs are subject to a consistent revie’
In the permit development process.
have permit requirements that achieve
compliance with the CWA. and are
subject to enforceable schedules that
require the earliest practicable
compliance date considering physical
and financial feasibility.
F. Police Development
This Policy devotes a separate section
to each step involved In developing and
Implementing CSO controls. This is not
to imply that each function occurs
separately. Rather, the entire process
surrounding CSO controls, community
planning, WQS and permit
development/revIsion, enforcement!
complIa w actions and public
participation must be coordinated to
control CSOs effectively. Permittees and
permitting authorities are encouraged to
consider Innovative and alternative
approaches and technologies that
achieve the objectives of this Policy and
the CWA.
In developing this Policy. EPA has
included Infonnation on what
responsible parties are expected to
accomplish. Subsequent documents will
provide additional guidance on how t)’
objectives of this Policy should be mi
These documents will provide furthe
guidance on: CSO permit writing, the
nine minimum controls, long-term CSO
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19 , 1994 1 Notices
18691
control plans, financial capability.
sewer system characterization and
receiving water monitoring and
modeling, and applicatfon of WQS to
CSO-impacted waters. For most CSO
control efforts however. sufficient detail
has been included In this Policy to
begin immediate implementation of its
provisions.
U. EPA Objectives for Pennittees
A. Overview
Permittees with CSSs that have CSOs
should immediately undertake a process
to accurately characterize their sewer
systems, to demonstrate implementation
of the nine minimum controls, and to
develop a long-term CSO control plan.
B. Implementation of the Nine
Minimum Controls
Permittees with CSOs should submit
appropriate documentation
demonstrating implementation of the
nine minimum controls, including any
proposed schedules for completing
minor construction activities. The nine
minimum controls are:
1. Proper operation and regular
maintenance programs for the sewer
system and the CSOs:
2. Maximum use of the collection
system for storage;
3. Review and modification of
pretreatment requirements to assure
CSO impacts are m4nIml ed ;
4. MaximizatIon of flow to the POTW
for treatment;
5. Prohihitir n of CSOs during dry
weather
6. Control of solid and floatable
materials in CSOs;
7. Pollution prevention;
8. Public notification to ensure that the
public receives adequate notification
of CSO occurrences and CSO Impacts:
and
9. Monitoring to effectively characterize
CSO impacts and the efficacy of CSO
controls.
Selection and implementation of
actual control measures should be based
on site-specific considerations Including
the specific CSS’s characteristics
discussed under the sewer system
characterization and monitoring
portions of this Policy. Documentation
of the nine minimum controls may
include operation and maintenance
plans, revised sewer use ordinances for
industrial users, sewer system
Inspection reports, infiltration/inflow
studies, pollution prevention programs,
public notification plans, and facility
plans for maYiTni’ ng the capacities of
the existing collection, storage and
treatment systems. as well as contracts
and schedules for minor construction
programs for Improving the existing
system’s operation. The permittee
should also submit any information or
dataon the degreetowhlchthenine
minimum controls achieve compliance
with water quality standards. These data
and information should include results
made available through monitoring and
modeling activities done in conjunction
with tb development of the long-term
CSO cäntrol plan describedjn this
Policy.
This documentation should be
submitted as soon as practicable, but no
later than two years after the
requirement to submit such
documentation Is included in an NPDES
permit or other enforceable mechanism.
Implementation of the nine minimum
controls with appropriate
documentation should be completed as
soon as practicable but no later than
January 1. 1997. These dates should be
Included in an appropriate enforceable
mechanism.
Because the CWA requires immediate
compliance with technology-based
controls (section 301(b)), which on a
Best Professional Judgment basis should
include the nine minimum cotitols. a
compliance schedule for implementing
the nine minimum controls. If
necessary, should be Included in an
apprqpriate enforceable mech n4 .m .
C. Long-Term CSO Control Plan
Permittees with CSOs are responsible
for developing and implementing long.
term CSO control plans that will
ultimately result in compliance with the
requirements of the CWA. The long-
term plans thould consider the site-
specific nature of CSOs and evaluate the
cost effectiveness of a range of control
options/strategies. The development of
the long-term CSO control plan and Its
subsequent implementation should also
be coordinated with the NPD
authority and the State authority
responsible for reviewing and revising
the State’s WQS. The selected controls
should be designed to allow cost
effective expansion or cost effective
retrofitting If additional controls are
subsequently determined to be
necessary to meet WQS, Including
existing and designated uses.
This policy Identifies EPA’s major
objectives for the long-term CSO control
plan. Permittees should develop and
submit this long-term CSO control plan
as soon as practicable, but generally
within two years after the data of the
NPDES permit provision. Section 308
Information request. or enforcement
action requiring the permittee to
develop the plan. NPDES authorities
may establish a longer timetable for
compleilon of the long-term CSO
control plan on a case-by-case basis to
account for site-specific factors which
may influence the complexity of the
plAnning process. Once agreed upon,
these dates should be included in an
appropriate enforceable mechanism.
EPA expects each long-term CSO
control plan to utilize appropriate
information to address the following
minimum elements. The Plan should
also Include both fixed-date project
implementation schedules (which may
be phased) and a financing plan to
design and construct the project as soon
as practicable. The minimum elements
of the long-term CSO control plan are
described below
1. CharacterizatIon, Monitoring, and
Modeling of the Combined Sewer
System
In order to design a CSO control plan
adequate to meet the requirements of
the CWA. a permittee should have a
thorough understanding of its sewer
system, the response of the system to
various precipitation events, the
characteristics of the overflows, and the
water quality Impacts that result from
CSOs. The permittee should adequately
characterize through monitoring.
modeling, and other means as
appropriate, for a range of storm events.
the response of its sewer system to wet
weather events Including the number,
location and frequency of CSOs,
volume, concentration and mass of
pollutants discharged and the impacts
of the CSOs on the receiving waters and
their designated uses. The perminee
may need to consider Infonnatlon on
the contrIbution and importance of
other pollution sources in order to
develop a final plan designed to meet
water quality standards. The purpose of
the system characterization, monitoring
and modeling program Initially is to
assist the parmittee In developing
appropriate measures to implement the
nine minimum controls and, If
neces aiy, to support development of
the long-term CSO control plan. The
monitoring and modeling data also will
be used to evaluate the expected
effectiveness of both the nine minimum
controls and. If necessary, the long-term
CSO controls, to meet WQS.
The major elements of a sewer system
characterization are described below.
a. P .4nfal1 Records—The permlttee
should evmnlnR the complete ri in t nii
reco d’for the geographic area of Its
existing CSS using sound statistical
procedures and beet available data. The
pe!mlttae should evaluate flow
variations In the receiving water body to
correlate between CSOs and receiving
water conditions.
e
-------
18692
Federal Register I VoL 59.. No. 75 / Tuesday. April 19. 1994 1 Notices
b. Coinbuied Sewer System
Oaaracterizatlon — Th8 permittee should
evaluate the nature and eatent of its
sewer system througk evaluation of
available sewer system records, field
inspections and other activities
necessary to understand the number.
location and frequency of overflows and
their location relative to sensitive areas
and to pollution sources in the
collection system. such as indirect
significant industrial users.
c. CEO Monitoring—The perinittee
should develop a comprehensive.
representatiVe monitoring program that
measures the frequency. duration, flow
rate, volume and pollutant
concentration of CEO discharges and
assesses the impact of the CSOs on the
receiving waters. The monitoring
program should include necessary CSO
effluent and ambient in•stream
monitoring and, where appropriate.
other monitoring protocols such as
biological assessment, toxicity testing
and sediment sampling. Monitoring
parameters should include, for example.
oxygen demanding pollutants, nutrients.
to,oc pollutants, sediment
contaminants. pathogens.
bacteriological indicators (e.g.,
Enten jcCus. E. Coli). and toxicity. A
representative sample of overflow
points can be selected that is sufficient
to allow characterization of CEO
discharges and their water quality
impacts and to facilitate evaluation of
control plan alternatives.
d. Modeling —MOdeling of a sewer
system is recognized as a valuable tool
for predicting sewer system response to
various wet weather events and
assessing water quality impacts when
evaluating different control strategies
and alternatives. EPA supports the
proper and effective use of models.
where appropriate. In the evaluation of
the nine mirimum controls and the
development of the long-term CEO
control plan. It Is also roaignizad that
there are many models which may be
used to do this. These models range
from simple to complex. Having
decided to use a model. the permittee
should base its chnic of a model on the
characteristics of Its sewer system. the
number and location of overflow points.
and the sensitivity of the receiving
water body to the CEO discharges. Use
of modeLs should Include appropriate
calibration end verification with field
measurements. The sophistication of the
model should relate to the complexity of
the system to be modeled and tothe
information needs asso ! Med with
evaluation of CEO control options and
water quality impacts. EPA believes that
continuous simulation models. using
historical v ” 11 data. may be the best
way to model sewer systems. CSOs. and
their impacts. Because of the iterative
nature of modeling sewer systems.
CSOs. and their impacts. monitoring
and modeling efforts are complementary
and sb uld be coordinated-
2. Public Participation
In developing its long-term CSO
control plan. the permittee will employ
a public participation process that
actively involves the affected public in
the dedsion.m ing to select the long-
term CEO controls. The affected public
includes rate payers. industrial users of
the sewer system. persons who reside
downstream from the CSOs. persons
who use and enjoy these downstream
waters. and any other interested
persons.
3. Consideration of Sensitive Areas
EPA expects a perinittee’s long-term
CEO control plan to give the highest
priority to controlling overflows to
sensitive areas. Sensitive areas, as
determined by the NPDES authority In
coordination with State and Federal
agencies. as appropriate, include
designated Outstanding National
Resource Waters. National Marine
Sanctuaries, waters with threatened or
endangered species and their habitat.
waters with primary contact recreation.
public drinking water intakes or their
designated protection areas, and
shellfish beds. For such areas, the long-
term CEO control plan should:
a. Prohibit new or signifiranily
Increased overflows;
b. L Itmi ( or relocate overflows
that discharge to sensitive areas
wherever physically possible and
economically achievable, except where
elimin tlon or relocation would provide
less environmental protection than
additional treatment; or
I I. Where elimin fion or relocation Is
not physically possible and
economically achievable, or would
provide less environmental protection
than additional treatment, provide the
level of treatment for r ’n .aimng
overflows deemed necessary to meet
WQS for full protection of existing end
designated uses. In any event, the level
of control should not be less than those
described in Evaluation of Alternatives
below and
c Where elimination or relocation has
been proven not to be physically
possible and economically achievable,
permitting authorities should require.
for each subsequent permit term, a
reassessment based on new or improved
techniques to eliminate or relocate, or
on changed circumstanceS that
Influence economic achievabliity.
4. Evaluat1n of M atlves
EPA expects the long-term CEO
control plan to.consider a reasonable
range of alternatives. The plan should.
for example. evaluate controls that
would be necessary to achieve zero
overflow events per year. an average of
one to three. four to seven, and eight to
twelve overflow events per year.
Alternatively, the long-term plan could
evaluate controls that achieve 100%
capture. 90% capture. 85% capture.
80% capture. and 75% capture for
treatment. The long-term control plan
should also consider expansion of
P01W secondary and primary capacity
in the CEO abatement alternative
analysis. The analysis of alternatives
should be sufficient to make a
reasonable assessment of cost and
performance as described in Section
ILC .5. Because the final long-term CEO
control plan wilt become the basis for
NPDES permit limits and requirements.
the selected controls should be
sufficient to meet CWA requirements.
In addition to considering sensitive
areas. the long-term CEO control plan
should adopt one of the following
approaches;
a. ‘Presumption” Approach
A program that meets any of the
criteria listed below would be presum’
to provide an adequate level of control
to meet the water quality-based
requirements of the CWA. provided the
permitting authority determines that
such presumption Is reasonable in light
of the data and analysis conducted in
the characterization. monitoring, and
modeling of the system and the
consideration of sensitive areas
described above. These criteria are
provided because data and modeling of
wet weather events often do not give a
clear picture of the level of CSO controls
necessary to protect WQS.
I. No more than an average of four
overflow events per year. provided that
the permitting authority may allow up
to two additional overflow events per
year. For the purpose of this criterion.
an overflow event Is on or more
overflows from a CSS as the result of a
precipitation event that does not receive
the m4t um treatment specified
below-, or
II. The ehm t tlon or the capture for
treatment of no less than 85% by
volume of the combined sewage
collected in the CSS during
precipitation events on a system-wide
annual average basis; or
UI. The etim tIon or removal of n
less than the mass of the pollutants.
Identified as causing water quality
impairment through the sewer system
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19. 1994 I Notices
18693
characterization, monitoring, and
modeling effort, for the volumes that
would be ellminnted or captured for
treatment under paragraph ii. above.
Combined sewer flows remaining after
implementation of the nine minimum
controls and within the criteria
specified at ILC.4.a.l or U, should
receive a minimum of:
• Primary clarification (Removal of
floatables and settleable solids may be
achieved by any combination of
treatment technologies or methods that
are shown to be equivalent to primary
clarification.);
• Solids and floatables disposal; and
• Disinfection of effluent, if
necessary, to meet WQS. protect
designated uses and protect human
health, including removal of harmful
disinfection chemical residuals, where
necessary.
b. “Demonstration” Approach
A permittee may demonstrate that a
selected control program. though not
meeting the criteria specified in II.CA.a.
above is adequate to meet the water
quality-based requirements of the CWA.
To be a suecessful demonstration, the
permittee should demonstrate each of
the following:
I. The planned control program is
adequate to meet WQS and protect
designated uses, unless WQS or uses
cannot be met as a result of natural
background conditions or pollution
sources other than CSOs; -
ii. The CSO discharges remaining
after Implementation of the planned
control program will not preclude the
attAinment of WQS or the receiving
waters’ designated uses or contribute to
their impairment. Where WQS and
designated uses are not met in part
because of natural background
conditions or pollution sources other
than CSOs, a total maximum daily load,
Including a wasteload allocation and a
load allocation, or other means should
be used to apportion pollutant loads;
Ui. The planned control program will
provide the maximum pollution
reduction benefits reasonably attainable;
and
iv. The planned control program is
designed to allow cost effective
expansion or cost effective retrofitting if
additional controls are subsequently
determined to be necessary to meet
WQS or designated uses.
5. Cost/Performance Considerations
The permittee should develop
,I,rnI , 4 Atfl rg,AtIrIr ,rfny!nAIir UPIIP t 1
fl.C.4. This should include an analysis
to determine where the Increment of
pollution reduction achieved in the
receiving water diminiches compared to
the increased costs. This analysis, often
known as knee of the curve, should be
among the considerations used to help
guide selection of controls.
6. Opeiptlonal Plan
After agreement between the
permlttee and NPDES authority on the
necessary CSO controls to be -
Implemented under the long-term CSO
control plan, the permittee should
revise the operation and maintenance
program developed as part of the nine
minimum controls to include the
agreed-upon long-term CSO controls.
The revised operation and maintenance
program should maxbnim the removal
of pollutants during and after each
precipitation event using all available
facilities within the collection and
treatment system. For any flows in
excess of the criteria specified at
ILC.4.a.i., ii. or ill and not receiving the
treatment specified in ILC.4.a, the
operational plan should ensure that
such flows receive treatment to the
greatest extent practicable.
7. Maximimng Treatment at the Existing
P01W Treatment Plant
In some communities. POTW
treatment plants may have primary
treatment capacity in of their
secondary treatment capacity. One
effective strategy to abate pollution
resulting from CSOs is to maximize the
delivery of flows during wet weather to
the PPTW treatment plant for treatment.
Delivering these flows can have two
slgnificaht water quality benefits: First,
increased flows during wet weather to
the POTW treatment plant way enable
the peimittee to eliminAte or minimim
overflows to sensitive areas: second, this
would mayImInA the use of available
POTW facilities for wet weather flows
and would ensure that combined sewer
flows receive at least primary treatment
prior to discharge.
Under EPA regulations, the
intentional diversion of waste streams
•from any portion of a treatment facility,
including secondary treatment, is a
bypass. EPA bypass regulations at 40
R 122.41(m) allow for a facility to
bypass some or all the flow from its
treatment process under specified
limited circumstances. Under the
regulation, the perinittee must show that
the bypass was unavoidable to prevent
loss of life, personal Injury or severe
property damage, that there was no
feasible alternative to the bypass and
that the permittee submitted the
required notices. In addition, the
regulation provides that a bypass may
be approved only alter consideration of
adverse effects.
Normally, it is the responsibility of
the permittee to document, on a case-by.
base basis, compliance with 40 CFR
122.41(m) in order to bypass flows
legally. For some CSO-related permits.
the study of feasible alternatives in the
control plan may provide sufficient
support for the permit record and for
approval of a CSO-ielated bypass in the
permit itsell and to define the specific
parameters under which a bypass can
legally occur. For approval of a CSO-
related bypass, the long-term CSO
control plan. at a minimum, should
provide justification for the cut-off point
at which the flow will be diverted from
the secondary treatment portion of the
treatment plant, and provide a benefit-
cost analysis demonstrating that
conveyance of wet weather flow to the
POTW for primary treatment Is more
beneficial than other CSO abatement
alternatives such as storage and pump
back for secondary treatment, sewer
separation, or satellite treatment. Such a
permit must define under what specific
wet weather conditions a CSO-related
bypass is allowed and also specify what
treatment or what monitoring, and
effluent limitations and requirements
apply to the bypass flow. The permit
should also provide that approval for
the CSO-related bypass will be reviewed
and may be modified nr terminated If
there is a substantial increase in the
volume or character of pollutants being
introduced to the POTW. The CSO-
related bypass provision in the permit
should also make it clear that all wet
weather flows passing the headworks of
the POT’,V treatment plant will receive
at least primary clarification and solids
and floatables removal and disposal,
and disinfection, where necessary, and
any other treatment that can reasonably
be provided.
Under this approach, EPA would -
allow a permit to authorize a CSO-
related bypass of the secondary
treatment portion of the POTW
treatment plant for combined sewer
flows in certain Identified
circumstances. This provision would
apply only to those situations where the
POTW would ordinarily meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 122.41(m) as
evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Therefore, there must be sufficient data
in the administrative record (reflected in
the permit fact sheet or statement of
basis) supporting all the requirements in
40 CFR 122 41(m)(4) for approval of an
anticipated bypass.
For the purposes of applying this
regulation to CSO permittees, “severe
property damage” could Include
comprehensive set of reasonable control
alternatives that correspond to the
different ranges specified in Section
-------
18694
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 75 / Tuesday. April 19. 1994 / Notices
situations where flows above a certain
level wash out the POTVi’s secondary
treatment system. EPA further believes
that the feasible alternatives
requirement of the regulation can be met
if the record shows that the secondary
treatment system is properly operated
and maintained, that the system has
been designed to meet secondary limits
for flows greater than the peak dry
weather flow, plus an appropriate
quantity of wet weather flow, and that
it is either technically or financially
infeasible to provide secondary
treatment at the existing facilities for
greater amounts of wet weather flow.
The feasible alternative analysis should
include, for example. consideration of
enhanced primary treatment (e.g..
chemical addition) and non.biological
secondary treatment. Other bases
supporting a finding of no feasible
alternative may also be available on a
case.by-case basis. As part of its
consideration of possible adverse effects
resulting from the bypass. the
permitting authority should also ensure
that the bypass will not cause
exceedances of WQS.
This Policy does not address the
appropriateness of approving
anticipated bypasses through NPDES
permits in advance outside the CSO
context.
8. Implementation Schedule
The permittee should Include all
pertinent Information in the Long term
control plan necessary to develop the
construction and financing schedule for
implementation of CSO controls.
Schedules for implementation of the
CSO controls may be phased based on
the relative importance.of adverse
impacts upon WQS and designated
uses. priority projects identified in the
long-term plan. and on a permittee’s
financial capability.
Construction phasing should
consid er
a. Eliminating overflows that
discharge to sensitive areas as the
highest priority
b. Use impairment:
c. The peimmee’s financial capability
including consideration of such factors
as:
I. Median household income;
ii. Total annual wastewater and CSO
control costs per household as a percent
of median household Income;
iii. Overall net debt as a percent of
full market property value:
iv. Property tax revenues ass percent
of full market property value:
v. Property tax collection rate:
vi. Unemployment: and
vii. Bond rating;
d. Grant and loan availability:
a. Previous and cement residential
commercial end industrial sewer user
fees and rate structures; and
L Other viable funding merJiani tii
and sources of financing .
9. Post.Constiuction Compliance
Monitoring Program
The selected CSO controls should
include a post-construction water
quality monitoring program adequate to
verify compliance with water quality
standards and protection of designated
uses as well as to ascertain the
effectiveness of CSO controls. This
water quality compliance monitoring
program should include a plan to be
approved by the NPDES authority that
details the monitoring protocols to be
followed, including the necessary
effluent and ambient monitoring and.
where appropriate, other monitoring
protocols such as biological
assessments, whole effluent toxicity
testing, and sediment sampling.
III. Coordination With State Water
Quality Standards
A. Overview
WQS are State adopted, or Federally
promulgated rules which serve as the
goals for the water body and the legal
basis for the water quality-based NPDES
permit requirements under the CWA.
WQS consist of uses which States
designate for their water bodies. criteria
to protect the uses, an anti-degradation
policy to protect the water quality
improvements gained and other policies
affecting the implementation of the
standards. A primary objective of the
long-term CSO control plan is to meet
WQS. including the designated uses
through reducing risks to human health
and the environment by eliminating.
relo ring or controlling CSOs to the
affected waters.
State WQS authorities. NPDES
authorities. EPA regional offices.
pennittees. and the public should meet
early and frequently throughout the
long-tend CSO control pIann ng
process. Development of the long-term
plan should be coordinated with the
review and appropriate revision of WQS
and implementation procedures on
CSO-impacted waters to ensure that the
long-term controls will be sufficient to
meet water quality standards. As part of
these meetings. participants should
agree on the data, information and
analyses needed to support the
development of the long-term CSO
control plan and the review of
applicable WQS. and implementation
procedures. if appropriate. Agreements
should be reached on the monitoring
protocols and models that will be used
to evaluate the water quality Impacts of
the overflows, to analyze the
attainability of the WQS and to
determine the water quality-based
requirements for the permit. Many
opportunities exist for peimittees and
States to share information as control
programs are developed and as WQS are
reviewed. Such information should
assist States in detjrmining the need for
revisions to WQS and implementation
procedures to better reflect the site-
specific wet weather impacts of CSOs.
Coordinating the development of the
long-term CSO control plan and the
review of the WQS and implementation
procedures provides greater assurance
that the long.term control plan selected
and the limits and requirements
included in the NPDES permit will be
sufficient to meet WQS and to comply
with sections 301(b)(1)(C) and 402(a)(2)
of the CWA.
EPA encourages States and permittees
lointly to sponsor workshops for the
affected public in the development of
the Long-term CSO control plan and
during the development of appropriate
revisions to WQS for CSO.impacted
waters. Workshops provide a forum for
including the public In discussions of
the implications of the proposed long-
term CSO control plan on the water
quality and uses for the receiving wate
B. Water Quality Standards Reviews
The CWA requires States to
periodically. but at least once every
three years. hold public hearings for the
purpose of reviewing applicable water
quality standards and, as appropriate.
modifying and adopting standards.
States must provide the public an
opportunity to comment on any
proposed revision to water quality
standards and all revisions must be
submitted to EPA for review and
approvaL
EPA regulations and guidance provide
States with the flexibility to adapt their
WQS. and Implementation procedures
to reflect site-specific conditions
including those related to CSOs. For
example. a State may adopt site-specific
criteria for a particular pollutant if the
State detenmn s that the site-specific
criteria fully protects the designated use
(40 R 131.11). In addition, the
regulations at 40 C ’R 131.20(g). (h). and
(j) specify when and how a designated
use may be modified. A State may
remove a designated use from its water
quality standards only if the designated
use is not an existing use. An existing
use is a use actually attained in the
water body on or after November 28.
1975. Furthermore, a State may not
removes designated use that will be
attained by implementing the
-------
technology-based effluent limits
required under sections 301(b) and 308
of the CWA and by Implementing cost-
effective and reasonable best
management practices for nonpaint
source controls. Thus. if a State has a
reasonable basis to determine that the
cunent designated use could be attained
after ImplementatIon of the technology-
based controls of the CWA, then the use
couldnotberenioved.
In determining whether a use Is
att i n le and prior to removing a
designated use. States must conduct and
submit to ‘A a use attainability
analysis. A use attainability analysis Is
a structured sdentlflc assv ament of the
factors affecting the use, Including the
physical. ch uiiraL biological. an
economic factors described In 40 CPR
131.10(g). As part of the analysis, States
should evaluate whether the designated
use could be attained lf controls
were Implemented. For example. States
should e ’ ne if sediment loadings
from couldbe reduced soasnot
to bury spawning beds. orif
biochemical exygen demanding material
in the effluent or the toxicity of the
effluent could be w. .ccted so as to
reduce the acute or chronic
physiological ees en or
bloaccurnulation por ntin) of aquatic
organisms.
In reviewing the al r hfl4ty of their
WQS end the applicability of their
iniplementation procedures to CSO-
Impacted waters. States are encouraged
to define more explicitly their
reaeatiormi and aquatic life uses and
then. if appropriate, modify the criteria
accordingly to protect the designated
uses.
Another option Is for States to adopt
partial us by d flni ’ig when primmy
contact recreation such as swimming
does not exist, such as during certain
seasons of the year in northern climates
or during a particular typo of storm
event. In v iii1ring such adjustments to
their uses. States must ensure that
downstream uses are protected, and that
during other seasons or after the storm
event has passed, the use Is fully
protected. _____
In addition to defining Evcr iIational
uses with greater specificity. States are
also encouraged to define the aquatic
uses more precisely. Rather than
“aquatic lila use protection.” States
should consider defining the type of
fishery to be protected such as a cold
water fishery (e.g., trout or salmon) or a
warm weather fishery (e.g., bluegill or
large mouth bass). Explicitly decithig
the type of fishery to be protected may
assist the permittee In enlisting the
support of dtlz ” for a CSO control
plan.
A water quality standard variance
may be appropriate. In limited
circumstances on CSO-impacted waters,
where the State Is uncertain as4o
whether a standard can be attained and
time Is needed for the State to conduct
additional analyses en the atminghi1i y
of the stian d . Variances are short-term
modifications in water quality
standards. Subject to A approval.
States,with their awn statutory
nuthority. may grant a variance to a
specific discharger for a specific
pollutant. The justification for a
variance is i nilzir to that required for
a permanent change In the standard,
although the showings needed are lees
rigorous. Variances are also subject to
public participation requirements of the
water quality standards and permits
programs and are reviewable generally
every three years. A variance allows the
CSO permit to be written to meet the
“modified” water quality standard as
analyses ale conducted and as pro
Is made to improve waler quality.
Justifications for variarxns are the
same as those Identified in 40 R
131.10(g) for modifications in uses.
States must provide an opportunity for
public review and comment on all
variances. If States use th. permit as the
vehicle to grant the variance, notice of
the permit must clearly state that the
variance modifies the State’s water’
quality standards. if the variance Is
approved, the State appends the
variance to the State’s standards and
reviews the variance every three years.
IV. Expectations for PenniWng
Authorities
A. Overifew
CSOs are point sourms subject to
NPDES permIt requirements including
both te hnology-based and water
quality-based requirements of the CWA.
CSOs are not subject to secondary
treatment regulations applicable to
publicly owned treatment works
(Montgome,y Environmental Coalition
vs. Costle, 646 F.2d 568 (D.C. C t.
1980)).
All permits for CSOs should require
the nine mtaimum controls as a
minimum best available technology
economically achievable and best
conventional technology (BAT/BC’ ! ’)
established one best professional
judgment (BPfl basis by the permitting
authority (40 G’R 125.3). Water quality-
based requirements are to be established
based on applicable water quality
standards.
This policy establishes a uniform,
nationally consistent approach to
developing and Issuing NPDES permits
to perarittees with CSOs. Permits for
18695
CSClo should be developed and “d
expeditiously. A single, system-wide
permit generally should be “ t d for all
discharges. Including CSOs, from a ($5
operated by a single authority. When
different parts of a sing). ( S are
operated by more than one authority,
permits issued to each authority should
generally require joint preparation and
lmplenusithtinn of the elements of this
Policy and should spedh .Iiy tI fii a
the responsibilities end duties of each
authority. Permittees should be required
to coordinate system-wide
Implementation of the nine minimum
controls and the development and
Implementation of the long-term ($0
control plan.
The individual authorities are
responsible for their own discharges and
should cooperate with the permittee for
the P0’I & receiving the flows from the
CSS. When a ($0 Is permitted
separately from the POTW, both permits
should be cross-referenced for
informational purposes.
EPA Regions and States should
review the CSO permitting priorities
established In the State CSO Permitting
Strategies developed In response to the
1989 Strategy. Regions and Stares may
elect to revise these previous priorities.
In setting permitting priorities, Regions
and States should not just focus on
those permittees that have initiated
monitoring progiams. When setting
priorities, Regions and States should
consider, for example. the known or
potential Impact of CSOs on sensitive
areas, and the extent of upstream
Industrial user discharges to the CSS.
During the permlttee’s development
of the long-term CSO control plan, the
permit writer should promote
coordination between the permittee and
State WQS authority In connection with
possible WQS revisions. Once the
permittee has completed development
of the long-term CSO control plan and
has coordinated with the permitting
authority the selection of the controls
Ti TiTyto meet the requirements of
the CWA, the permitting authority
should Include In an appropriate
enforceable mechanism, requirements
for Implementation of the long-term
CSO control plan, Including conditions
for water quality monitoring and
operation and maintenance.
B. NPDES Permit Requirements
Following are the major elements of
NPDES permits to Implement this
Policy arid ensure protection of water
quality.
F dera1 Register / VoL 59. No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 19941 NotIces
-------
18696
Federal Register! Vol. 59. No. 75 F Tuesday. April 19, 1994 1 Notices
1. Phase I Permits—Requirements for
Demonstration of Implementation of the
Nine Minimum Controls and
Development of the Long-Term CSO
Control PLan
In the Phase permit issued/modified
to reflect this Policy, the NPDES
authority should at least require
permittees to:
a. Immediately implement BAT/BC !’.
which at a miI imum includes the nine
minimum controls, as determined on a
BPJ basis by the permitting authority:
b. Develop and submit a report
documenting the implementation of the
nine mimmuin controls within two
years of permit issuancehnodlficatlon;
c. Comply with applicable WQS. no
later than the date allowed under the
State’s WQS, expressed in the form of a
narrative limitation; and
d. develop and submit, consistent
with this Policy and based on a
schedule in an appropriate enforceable
mechanism, a long-term CSO control
plan as soon as practicable, but
generally within two years after the
effective date of the permit issuance/
modification. However, permitting
authorities may establish a longer
timetable for completion of the long-
term CSO control plan on a case-by-case
basis to amount for site.speciflc factors
that may influence the complexity-of the
plnnning pracecs.
The NPDES authority should include
compliance dates on the.faatest
practicable schedule for each of the nine
minimum controls in an appropriate
enforceable mechanism Issued in
conjunction with the Phase I permit.
The use of enforceable orders Is
necessary unless Congress amends the
CWA. AU orders should require
compliance with the nine nlnimum
controls no later than Januaiy 1.1997.
2. Phase II Permits—Requirements for
Implementation of a Long-Term CSO
Control Plan
Once the permittee has completed
development of the long-term CSO
control plan and the selection of the
controls necessary to meet CWA —
requirements has been coordinated with
the permitting and WQS authorities, the
permitting authority should Include, In
an appropriate enforceable merhcnicm.
requirements for implementation of the
long-term CSO control plan as soon as
practicable. Where the permittee has
selected controls based on the
“presumption” approach described in
Section ILC4. the permitting authority
must have determined that the
presumption that such level of
treatment will achieve water quality
standards is reasonable in light of the
data and analysis conducted under this
Policy. The Phase U permit should
contairu
a. Requirements to implement the
tecbnolo -based controls Including the
nine miithnum controls determined on
a BPJ basis:
b. Narrative requirements which
insure that the selected CSO controls are
Implemented, operated and maintained
as described in the long-term CSO
control plan;
c. Water quality-based effluent limits
under 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1) and
122.44(k), requiring. at a minimum,
complb .nre with, no later than the date
allowed under the State’s WQS. the
numeric performance standards for the
selected CSO controls, based on average
design conditions specifying at least one
of the following
I. A ma.’dmum number of overflow
events per year for specified design
conditions consistent with IIC.4.a.i: or
ii. A minimum percentage capture of
combined sewage by volume for
treatment under specified design
conditions consistent with lI .C.4.a.il: or
iii. A minimum removal of the mass
of pollutants discharged for specified
design conditions consistent with
U.C.4.a.iii: or
iv. performance standards and
requirements that are consistent with
ll.C.4.b. of the Policy.
d. A requirement to implement. with
an established schedule, the approved
post-construction water quality
assessment program including
requirements t monitor and collect
sufficient information to demonstrate
compliance with WQS and protection of
designated uses as well as to determine
the effectiveness of CSO controls.
e. A requirement to reassess overflows
to sensitive areas in those cases where
elirninMion or relocation of the
overflows Is not physically possible and
economically achievable. The
reassessment should be based on
consideration of new or Improved
techniques to elimincte or relocate
overflows or changed circumstances
that influence economic achievability;
f. Conditions establishing
requirements for mcv4mi lng the
treatment of wet weather flows at the
POTW treatment plant, as appropriate,
consistent with Section ILC,7. of this
Policy:
g. A reopener clause authorizing the
NPDES authority to reopen and modify
the permit upon determination that the
CSO controls fail to meet WQS or
protect designated uses. Upon such
determination, the NPDES authority
should promptly notify the permittee
and proceed to modify or reissue the
permit. The pennittee should be
required to develop, submit and
implement, as soon as practicable, a
revised CSO control plan which
contains additional controls to meet
WQS and designated uses. If the initial
CSO control plan was approved under
the demonstration provision of Section
II.C.4.b.. the revised plan. at a
minimum, should provide for controls
that satisfy one of the criteria in Section
U.C.4.a. unless the permittee
demonstrates that the revised plan is
clearly adequate to meet WQS at a lower
cost and it is shown that the additional
controls resulting from the criteria in
Section fl.C.4.a. will not result In a
greater overall improvement in water
quality.
Unless the permittee can comply with
all of the requirements of the Phase U
permit, the NPDES authority should
include, Lu an enforceable mechanism,
compliance dates on the fastest
practicable schedule for those activities
directly related to meeting the
requirements of the CWA. For major
perinittees. the compliance schedule
should be placed in a judicial order.
Proper compliance with the schedule
for implementing the controls
recommended in the long.temi CSO
control plan constitutes compliance
with the elements of this Policy
concerning plenning and
implementation of a long term CSO
remedy.
3. Phasing Considerations
Implementation of CSO controls may
be phased based on the relative
importance of and adverse impacts
upon WQS and designated uses, as well
as the permittee’s financial capability
and Its previous efforts to control CSOs.
The NPDES authority should evaluate
the proposed implementation schedule
and construction phisiiing discu.ssed in
Section ILC.8. of this Policy. The permit
should require compliance with the
controls proposed in the long-term CSO
control plan no later than the applicable
deadline(s) under the CWA or State law.
If compliance with the Phase II permit
Is not possible. an enforceable schedule.
consistent with the Enfârcement and -
Compliance Section of this Policy.
should be Issued In conjunction with
the Phase U permit which specifies the
schedule and milestones for
Implementation of the long-term CSO
control plan.
V. Enforcement and Compliance
A. Overview
It Is important that permittees act
Immediately to take the necessary ste ...
to comply with the OVA. The CSO
enforcement effort will commence with
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19, 1994 / Notices
18697
an Initiative to address CSOs that
discharge during dry weather, followed
by an enforcement effort In conjunction
with permitting CSOs discussed earlier
in this Policy. Sucoess of the
enforcement effort will depend In large
part upon expeditious action by NPDES
authorities in issuing enforceable
permits that include requirements both
for the nine minimum controls and for
compliance with all other requirements
of the CWA. Priority for enforcement
actions should be set based on
environmental impacts or sensitive
areas affected by CSOs.
As a further inducement for
permittees to cooperate with this
process. EPA is prepared to exercise its
enforcement discretion in determining
whether or not to seek civil penalties for
past CSO violations if permittees meet
the objectives and schedules of this
Policy and do not have CSOs during dry
weather.
B. Enforcement of CSO Dry Weather
Discharge Prohibition
EPA intends to commence
immediately an enforcement Initiative
against CSO perminees which have
CWA violations due to CSOs during dry
weather. Discharges during dry weather
have always been prohibited by the
NPDES program. Such discharges can
create serious public health and water
quality problems. EPA will use its CWA
Section 308 monitoring, reporting, and
inspection authorities, together with
NPDESj ;e authorities, to locate these
violations, and to determine their
causes. Appropriate remedies and
penalties will be sought for CSOs during
dry weather. EPA will provide NPDES
authorities more specific guidance on
this enforcement Initiative separately.
C. Enforcement of Wet Weather CSO
Requirements
Under the CWA, EPA can use several
enforcement options to address
permittees with CSOs. Those options
directly applicable to this Policy are
section 308 Information Requests.
sectIon 309(a) AdminIstrative Orders,
section 309(g) Administrative Penalty
Orders. section 309 (b) and (d) Civil
Judicial Actions, and section 504
Emergency Powers. NPDES States
should use comparable meani.
NPDES authorities should set
priorities for enforcement based on
environmental Impacts or sensitive
areas affected by CSOs. Permittees that
have voluntarily Initiated monitoring
and are progressing expeditiously
toward appropriate CSO controls should
be given due consideration for their
efforts.
1. Enforcement for Compliance With
Phase I Permits
Enforcement for compliance with
Phase I permits will focus on’
requirements to implement at least the
nine minimum controls, and develop
the long.term CSO control plan leading
to compliance with the requirements of
the CWA. Where Immediate compliance
with the Phase I permit Is infeasible, the
NPDES authority should Issue an
enforceable schedule, In concert with
the Phase! permit, requiring
compliance with the CWA and
imposing compliance schedules with
dates for each of the nine minimum
controls as soon as practicable. All
enforcement authorities should require
compliance with the nine minimum
controls no later than January 1. 1997.
Where the NPDES authority is issuing
an order with a compliance schedule for
the nine minimum controls, this order
should also Include a schedule for
development of the long.term CSO
control plan.
If a CSO permittee falls to meet the
final compliance date of the schedule.
the NPDES authority should initiate
appropriate judicial action.
2. Enforcement for Compliance With
Phase II Permits
The main focus for enforcing
compliance with Phase U permits will
be to incorporate the long-term CSO
control plan through a civil judicial
action, an administrative order, or other
enforceable mechanism requiring
compliance with the CWA and
Imposing a compliance schedule with
appropr ate milestone dates necessary to
Implement the plan.
In general, a judicial order is the
appro riate mechanism for
incorporating the above provisions for
Phase U. Administrative orders,
however, may be appropriate for
permittees whose long.term control
plans will take less than five yealsto
complete, and for minors that have
complied with the final date of the
enforceable order for compliance with
their Phase I permit. If necessary, any of
the nine minimum controls that have
not been implemented by this time
should be included In the terms of the
judicial order.
I). Penalties
EPA Is prepared not to seek civil
penalties for past CSO violations, if
permittees have no discharges during
dry weather and meet the objectives and
schedules of this Policy.
Notwithstanding this, where a perruittee
has other sigulficant CWA violations for
which EPA or the State Is taking judidal
action, penalties may be considered as
part of that action for the followier
1. CSOr during dry weather.
2. Violations of CSO.relaied
requirements in NPDES permits:
consent decrees or court orders which
predate this policy; or
3. Other CWA violations.
EPA will not seek penalties for past
CSO violations from permittees that
fully comply with the Phase I permit or
enforceable order requiring compliance
with the Phase I permit. For permittees
that fail to comply, EPA will exercise its
enforcement discretion in determining
whether to seek penalties for the time
period for which the compliance
schedule was violated. If the milestone
dates of the enforceable schedule are not
achieved and penalties are sought.
penalties should be calculated from the
last milestone date that was met.
At the time of the judicial settlement
Imposing a compliance schedule
Implementing the Phase U permit
iequirementh, EPA will not seek
penalties for past CSO violations from
permittees that fully comply with the
enforceable order requiring compliance
with the Phase I permit and if the terms
of the judicial order are expeditiously
agreed to on consent. However,
stipulated penalties for violation of the
judicial order generally should be
Included in the order, consistent with
existing Agency policies. Additional
guidance on stipulated penalties
concerning long.term CSO controls and
attainment of %VQS will be issued.
Paperwork Reduction Act
—The information collection
requirements in this policy have been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (0MB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq
and have been assigned 0MB control
number 2040-0170.
This collection of information has an
estimated reporting burden averaging
578 hours per response and an
estimated annual recordkeeping burden
averaging 25 hours per recordkeeper.
These estimates include time for
reviewing instructions, searching
e dsting data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection
of information.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of Information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to
Chief, Information Policy Branch: EPA;
401 M Street SW. (Mall Code 2136);
Washington, DC 20460; and to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs. Office of Management and
-------
18698 Federal Ragister / Vol. 59, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19. 1994 / Notices
Budget, Wesh(ngton. DC 20503, marked
“Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.”
LFR Doc. 94.9295 FlIed 4—IB-GI; 8:45 smI
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 9933
40 CFR Part 233
RL-4834-Ij
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection and Energy
Section 404 PermIt Program Approval
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
Acme: Final rule; approval of State
program.
su aRv The State of New Jersey has
submitted an application under section
404(g) of the Dean Water Act for the
approval of a program to regulate the
discharge of dredged or fill material into
certain waters of the United States
within the State. After careful review of
the application and comments received
from the public, the Agency has
determined that the State’s program to
regulate discharges of dredged or fill
material meets the requirements of
section 404(h) of the Act. Therefore, this
application Is approved.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This approval will
become effective at 1p.m. eastern
daylight time on March 2.1994. The
incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed In this approval is
approved by the Director of the Federal
- ‘gister. as of 1p.m. on March 2. 1994.
ancordance wIth 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
FOR RR1) R IIFO AT10N COSITAC1
Mario Del Vicano. Drief. Marine &
Wetlands Protection Branch, Water
Management Division. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region II, 28 FederaiPlass. New York.
NY 10278 orby telephone at (212)264—
5170. Copies of EPA’s responsiveness
summary are available from the above
address.
SuPpLEMEpn’A y StFORMAT1ON: The
Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C 1251
et seq.. hereinafter the “CWA)
established the section 404 Permit
Program. under which the Seaetary of
the Army, acting through the Chief of
Png na s of the U.S. Army Corps of
Fngpu is (Corps). may Issue permits for
the discharge of dredged or fill material
into waters of the United States at
specified disposal sites. SectIon 404(g)
of the CWA provides that the Governor
of any state desiring to administer its
own individual and general permit
program for the .Iiwharge of dredged or
fill material into waters of the United
States (other than those waters which
are presently used, or are susceptible for
use in their natural condition or by
onable Impwvmuent as a means to
.rsport interstate or foreign commerce
shoreward to the ordinary high water
mark. inclu’ 1 i g all waters which are
subject to the ebb and flow of the tide
shoreward to their mean high water
mark, or mean higher high water mark
on the west coast, including wetlands
adjacent thereto) within its jurisdiction
may submit to the Administrator of the
LJSEPA a full and complete desaiption
of the program it proposes to establish
and administer under State law.
including a statement from the State
Attorney General that the laws of the
State provide adequate authority to
carry out the described program. The
Administrator is required to approve
such submitted program unless the
program does not meet the requirements
of Section 404(h) of the CWA. Among
other authorities, the State must have:
(1) Adequate authority to issue
permits which comply with all
pertinent requirements of the CWA.
including the guidelines developed
under section 404(b)(1); (2) adequate
authority, Including civil and C u iinnl
penalties, to abate violations of the
permit or the permit program; and (3)
authority to ensure that the
Administrator, the public, any other
affected State. and other affected
agendas, are given notice of
application for permit and are provided
an opportunity Cars public bearing
before a ruling on each such
application. The regulations
establichmnR the requirements for the
approval o1the 404 Permit Programs
were published at 53 FR 20764 on June
8.1988(40 DR parts 232 and 233).
On Jun. 15, 1993 the State of New
Jersey completed the subyni inn of an
application ubder section 404(g) for
EPA approval cia program
administered by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
and Energy (NJDEPE) to regulate the
discharge of dredged or fill material into
waters of the United States within the
State. On July 9. 1993 EPA published
notice of Its receipt of the application.
requested public comments, and
scheduled three public hearings on the
State’s submission (FR Doc. 93—16307).
The public hearings were held
throughout the state on August 10. 11.
and 12, 1993.
After careful review of this
application.! have determined that the
State of New Jerseys Program submitted
by the NJD ’E to regulate discharges of
dredged or fill material meets the
requirements of section 404(h) of the
CWA. and hereby approve it. The effect
of this approval is to establish this
program as the applicable regulatory
program under the CWA for discharges
of dredged or fill material Into waters of
the United States in Now Jersey that are
not presently used, or susceptible for
use in their natural c . ndItlon c i’ by
reasonable Improvement as a means to
transport commerce shoreward to the
ordinary high water mark, including
wetlands adjacent thereto.
Since this approval, in large part.
simply ratifies State regulations and
requirements already in effect under
State law, EPA is publishing this
approval, effective immediately. This
Will enable New Jersey to begin
immediately regulating discharges of
dredged or fill material under the
Federally approved program.
List of Subjects in 40 DR Pail 233
Environmental protection.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations. Water
pollution control.
Dated: January 25. 1994.
William J. Musrywici,
Acting tlegionalAdminsstavtor.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble. chpater I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations Is amended as
follows:
PART 233—404 STATE PROGRAM
REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 233
Is revised to read as follows:
Autherlty 33 U.S.C 1251 if seq.
Subpart H—Approved State Programa
2. Part 233 is amended by adding
S 233.71 to subpart H to read as follows:
5233.71 New Jersey.
The applicable regulatory program for
discharges of dredged or fill material
into waters of the United States in New
Jersey that are not presently used. or
susceptible for use in their natural
condition or by reasonable Improvement
as a means to transport interstate or
foreign commerce slioreward to the
ordinary high water mark. Including
wetlands adjacent thereto, except those
on Indian lands, lathe program
administered by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
and Energy, approved by EPA. pursuant
to section 404 of the CWA. The program
becomes effective March 2.1994. This
program consists of the following
elements, as submitted to EPA in the
States program application:
(a) Incorporation by reference. The
requirements set forth in the State
statutes and regulations cited in
paragraph (b) of this section are hereby
incorporated by reference and made a
part of the applicable 404 Program
under the CWA for the State of New
Jersey.,for incorporation by reference by
the Director of the Federal Register In
accordance with 552(a) and I DR part
-------
9934 Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 41 / Wednesday, March 2, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
51. Material is incorporated as it e3usts
at 1p.m. on March 2, 1994 and notice
of any change in the material will be
published In the Federal Register.
(b) Copies of materials incorporated
by reference may be Inspected at the
Office of the Federal Register. 800 North
Capitol Street. NW.. suite 700.
Washington. DC. Copies of materials
incorporated by reference may be
obtained or inspected at the EPA OUST
Docket. 401 M Street. SW.. Washington.
DC 20460. and at the Library of the
Region 2 Regional Office, Federal Office
Building. 26 Federal Plaza. New York.
NY 10278.
(1) New Jersey Statutory
Requirements Applicable to the
Preshwater Wetlands Program. 1994.
(2) New Jersey Regulatory
Requirements Applicable to the
Freshwater Wetlands Program. 1994.
(C) Other laws. The following statutes
and regulations. although not
Incorporated by reference, also are part
of the approved State-administered
program:
(1) Administrative Procedure Act.
N.J.S.A. 52:14B—1 et. seq.
(2) New Jersey Uniform
Administrative Procedure Rules.
N.J.A.C. 1:1—1.1 et. seq.
(3) Open Public Meetings Act.
N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 eL seq.
(4) E,r min tion ana Copies of Public
Records. N.J.S.A. 47:IA-1 at. seq.
(5) Environmental Rights Act. N.J.S.A.
2A:33A—1 at. seq.
(6) Department of Environmental
Protection (and Energy), N.J.S.A. 13:ID-
let. seq.
(7) Water Pollution Control Act.
N.J.S.A. 58:1OA—1 et. seq.
(d) Memoranda of agreement. The
following memoranda of agreement,
although not Incorporated by reference
also are part of the approved State
administered program: _____
(1) The Memorandum of Agreement
between EPA Region U and the New
Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy, signed by the
EPA Region U Acting Regional
Administrator on June 13.1993.
(2) The Memorandum of Agreement
between the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
and Energy. signed by the Division
Engineer on March 4. 1993.
(3) The Memorandum of Agreement
between EPA Region U, the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
and Energy, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, signed by all parties on
December 22, 1993.
(e) Statement of legal authonty. The
following documents, although not
Incorporated by reference, also are part
of the approved State administered
program:
(1) Attorney General’s Statement,
signed by the Attorney General of New
Jersey, as submitted with the request for
approval of The State of New Jersey’s
404 Program.
(2) The program desaiption and any
other materials submitted as part of the
original application or supplements
thereto.
(FR Dcc. 94—4651 Filed 3—1—94; 8:45 aml
esion aces em
FEDERAL COMMUNICATiONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
MM Docket No. 92-265; 0*94-1643
Cable Services; Cable Television Act
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTiON: Final rule; correction of
effective date.
SUMMARY: The Commission corrects the
January 10, 1994. effectIve date for
adoption of its rules regarding carriage
agreements between multIrh n el video
programming distributors and video
programming vendors (47 O’R 76.1300-
76.1302), The effective date for this rule
adoption is now January 26, 1994. The
rule adoption was published on
Tuesday, November 18. 1993 (58 FR
60390).
EFFECTIVE DATL January 26, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION COIITACT
Diane Hofbauer, 202—418-0807.
SUPPLEMENTARY INEORMATICN The
Commission, issued a Second Report
and Order In MM Docket 92—265,
which, In response to the Cable
Television Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992 prescribed
regulations governing carnage
agreements between multlrhannel video
programming distributors and video
programming vendors. As part of this
action, the Commission adopted 47 GR
76.1300—76.1302. These regulations
Included adoption of complaint
procedures requiring approval by the
Office of Management and Budget. That
approval was received on January 28.
1994. AccordIngly, the January 10, 1994.
effective date for the adoption of 47 CFR
78.1300—76.1302 as published in FR
Doc. 93—27880, on November 16. 1993
(page 60390. column 2) is corrected to
be January 28. 1994.
Federal Conimunicatlons Commlssior
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretor, ’.
(FR Dec. 94—4458 Filed 3-1—94: 8:45 aml
SIUJIO COOS S?12-4I-
47 CFR Part 76
(7AM Docket No, 92-264 0*94-1603
Cable Services; Cable Television Ac
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; correction of
effective date.
SUMMARY: The Commission corrects th
January 10, 1994, effective date for an
amendment to its rules regarding limit
on the carnage of vertically integrated
cable programming (47 CFR 78.504).
The effective date for this amendment
now January 26, 1994. The rule
amendment was published on Monday
November 15, 1993 (58 FR 60135).
EFFECTIVE DATE: SectIon 76.504 Is
effective January 28. 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTAC”
Rita McDonald. 202—632—5414.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Comiiu tcion, Issued a Second Report
and Order in MM Docket 92—264,
which. In response to the Cable
Television Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992 presaibed
national subscriber limits and limits on
the number of t hnnnel& that can be
occupied on a cable system by a video
programmer In which the cable operator
has an attributable interest. As part of
this action, the Commission added 47
GR 76.504. ThIs addition included a
recordkeeping obligation requiring
approval by the Office of Management
and Budget. That approval was received
on January 26. 1994. AccordIngly, the
January 10. 1994. effective date for the
addition of 47 0R 78.504 as published
In FR Dec. 93-27630, on November 15,
1993 (page 60135. column 1) is
corrected to be January 28, 1994.
Federal Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
(FR Doc. 94—4457 FIled 3—1—94; 8.45 amP
aii&es coos aria-.,-
-------
Federal Raer I VoL 59 No. 25 1 Monday. February 7. 1994 F Notices
5599
kilowatthour of the scheduled as
delivered kilowaithours at th. point of
delivery, established by contract:
payable monthly.
step Two Nonflrm Transmission
Service Charge 1.52 mills per
kilowatthour of the scheduled or
delivered kilowatthow at the point of
delivery, established by contract
payable monthly.
Ad;vstments
For Reactive Power
None. There shall be no entitlement to
transfer of reactive kilovolt-amperes at
points of delivery, except when such
transfers may be mutually agreed upon
by contractor and contr 4ng officer or
their authorized representatives.
For Losses
Capacity and energy losses incurred
in connection with the tr ” ’ issign and
delivery of capacity and enaizy under
this rate schedule shall be supplied by
the customer In acuordance with the
service contract.
IFR Doc. 94—2730 Filed Z—4—94. 8:45 amj
nLLee osea
AGENCY
(FRL-4834-77
NotIfication of Request for Research
Assistance; Program Development and
Evaluation Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program Estuaries—
Lou islanian and West Indian Provinces
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency. Environmental Research
Laboratory. Gulf Breeze. Florida.
ACT)ON Notification of Request for
Research Assistance .
SUMMARY: The EMAP—Estuaries (EMAP—
El research program develops strategies
to define Its monitoring program.
interpret results. and wdrspolate the
findings of the experimental monitoring
systems to different time and spatial
scnlø as well as various pollutant!
environmental scenarios. Assistance is
requested of cooperating institutions to
develop indices of estuarine condition
and evaluate effectiveness of the
imposed sampling and processing
regimes. Each area of cooperation also
presents additional research
possibilities that extend beyond the
basic EMAP concepL
Areas of Researtlu (One cooperative
agreement is expected to be awarded
foreach area.)
—Validation of the EMAP Benthic Index
and )oixit development of alternate
benthic jvlilirA 5 . far the Louisi m i
Province (12). The goal is to further
develop the relationship between
abiotic and biotic benthic ors. This
research incorporates the collection of
biotic and. ahiotic data on benthic
samples (La.. sediment toxicity.
abundance and diversity of
organisms, siltlclay content) from
each EMAP—LP site and correlation of
the information with other field date
coliected.
—Evaluation of levels of contaminants
in sediments and fish tissue to
determine nominal and subnrm inaI
levels of contam 4 ” ”n and
identification of which contaminant Is
most prevalent and of most ecological
concern, and adjustments of raw
concentration based on environmental
condition. The oint development of
an index olcontAminant stress is
strongly desired. This extends to both
organismal and system-level
assessments. -
—Joint development of an index of the
trophic state of estuarine systems.
This includes the selection of
parameters to be measured (e.g..
nutrient levels. productivity, stable
isotope ratios) and the development of
protocols for sample collection arid
SUPPLENENTARY VIFORMATION:
Cooperative agreements are Intended to
promote collabozathe Interaction with.
EPA researchers. Selectees will be
expected to collaborate with EMAP
personnel and other EMAP researchers
in their areas of research. The ongoing
research may require the combination of
all analytical i’esults towards the
development of new condition indices.
FOR FURTHER INFORMSTION CONTACT: Ms.
Janis Kurtz. U.S. EPA. ERL/Guif Breeze,
I Sabine Island Drive. Cull Breeze. FL
32561. Proposals should be postmarked
by February 28. 1994.
Dated: lanuazy3l. 3994.
Ca Gerber.
Acting Assistant Admi.nistrotorforResearch
and Development.
(FR Doc. 94—270 Filed 2-4—94; 8:45 aml
cool sase .
Notice of Open Meeting of the
Superfund Evaluation Committee of
the National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology
(NACEPT)
Under PL 92463 (the Federal
Advisory Committee Act), EPA gives
notice of a meeting onFebruary 11.
1994 of the Superfund Evaluation
Committee. The Superfund Evaluation
Committee is a subcommittee of the
National Advisory Cowicil for
Environmental Policy and Technology
(NA(E’rj, an advisory committee to the
Administrator of the EPA. The
Su omjnittee will offer comments on
the proposed Superfund legislation and
discuss its role in the reauthorization
process. The meeting will take place at
the Hyatt Regency Hotel (2799 Jefferson
Davis Highway, (Crystal City) Arlington .
Virginia) from 1.ilO-5.i)Op.m. Inte sted
parties may call the RCRAlSuperfund
Hotllne at 1—800—424—9346. 703—920—
9810, or 1—800—486—3323 (TDD) for
copies of the materials EPA is providing
to the Committee. -
The Deputy Administrator of the EPA
has called this emergency meeting on
short notice to solicit timely input from
Committee members. Written comments
of preferably not more than 25 pages (at
least 25 copies) may be provided to the
committee up until the meeting. Those
interested in attending must contact
Abby Pirnie (U.S. EPA 401 M Street.
SW.. Washington, DC 20460. mail code,
1601 or phone. 202—260—7567. or fax.
202—260—3682.
Dated: February 1. 1994
Abby J.
NA CEPT Designated Federal Official.
IFR Doe. 94-269? FIled Z-4—94. 8:45 aml
Se.UNO coos s-isw
tFRL-4834-67
Revision of the Kansas National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Program To
Authorize the Issuance of General
Permits
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Approval of the
NPDES General Permits Program of the
State of Kansas.
SUMMARY: On November 24. 1993, the
Regional Administrator for the EPA.
Region Vfl. approved the State of
Kansas ’ NPDES General Permits
Program. This action authorizes the
State of Kansas to issue general permits
in lieu of individual NPDES permits.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Donald C. Toensmg. Chief. Permits/
Compliance Section. Water Compliance
Branch. U.S Environmental Protection
Agency. Region VII. 726 Minnesota
Avenue, Kansas City. Kansas 66101,
(913) 551—7034.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
EPA regulations at 40 G’R 122.28
provide for the issuance of general
-------
5600
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 25 / Monday, February 1, 1994 / Notices
petmns to regulate discharges of
wastewater which result from
substantially similar operations, contain
the same types of wastes, require the
same affluent limitations or operating
conditions, require similar monitoring,
and are appropriately controlled under
a general permit rather than Individual
permits.
Kansas was authorized to administer
the NPDES Permit Program in 1974. As
previously approved, the State’s
program did not include provisions for
the issuance of general permits. There
are several categories of discharges
which could appropriately be regulated
by general permits in Kansas. including
storm water. Therefore, the Kansas
Department of Health and Environment
requested a mvision of its NPDES
program to provide for issuance of
general permits.
Each general permit will be subject to
EPA review as provided by 40 CFR
123.44. Public notice and opportunity to
request a hearing is also provided or
each general permit.
11. Discussion
The State of Kansas submitted, in
support of its request. a Program
Desaiption and revised NPDES.
Memorandum of Agreement between
EPA and the State. as well as copies of
relevant statutes and regulations. The
State also submitted a statement by the
Attorney General’certifylng. with
appropriate citations to the statues and
regulations, that the State has adequate
legal authority to administer a general
permit program consistent with the
applicable federal regulations. Based
upon lCnnteit ’ submission and its
experience in administering an
approved NPDES program. EPA has
concluded that the State will have the
necessary approved procedures and
resources to administer the general
permits program.
Under 40 R 123.62. NPDES
program revisions are either substantial
(requiring publication of proposed
program approval in the Federal
Register for public comment) or non-
substantial (where approval may be
granted by letter from EPA to the State).
EPA has determined that assumption by
Kansas of general permit authority isa
non’substantial revision of its NPDES
program. EPA has generally viewed
approval of such authority as non-
substantial because it does not alter the
substantive obligations of any
discharger under the State program, but
merely simplifies the procedures by
which permits are issued to a number of
similar point sources.
Moreover, wider the approved
program, the State retains authority to
issue individual permits where
appropriate, and any person may
request the State to issue an individual
permit to a discharger otherwise eligible
for general permit coverage. While not
required wider 40 CFR 123.62, EPA is
publishing notice of this approval action
to keep the public informed of the status
of its general permit program approvals.
W Federal Register Notice of Approval
of State NPDES Program or
Modifications.
The following table provides the
public with an up-to-date list of the
status of State NPDES permitting
authority throughout the country.
Today’s Federal Register notice is to
announce the approval of Kansas’
authority to issue general permits.
IV. Review Under Executive Order
12291 and the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the review
requirements of Executive Order 12291
pursuant to Section 8 (b) of that Order.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis for all rules which
may have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Pursuant to section 605(d) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
at seq.), I certify that this State General
Permit Program..will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Approval of
the Kansas NPDES State General Permit
Program establishes no new substantive
requirements, nor does it alter the
regulatory control over any industrial
category. Approval of the Kansas
NPDES State General Permit Program
merely provides a simplified
administrative process.
Dated: Decamber 20,1991
WIll lainW.Riea,
Acting Regionoi Administrator. Region V II.
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS
(12 1 30/9
Approved State
NPOES permit
program
Approved to regu.
late ladOW
aes
Approved State
pro .
gem
Approved general
Alabama
Catiema
Calom
Oelaware..
Georgia
Hawaã
lU on
ln ans
Iowa
Kansas
Kentuetcy.,
Masyland.,
10/19179
11101186
09114173
03/27l75
09/26 ( 73
04/01/74
06128/74
11/28174
10/2 3 177
01101175
06110178
06128174
09/30183
09105/74
10/17173
06130174
05101174
10 130174
09110174
06112174
09 /1 0 175
04113/82
10/18179
11101188
05105 178
01/09/89
12J08 180
09101179
06/20 ( 79
12109178
08110 ( 78
08/2 6185
09130/83
11110/87
12109178
12109/78
01/28 183
09129181
11/021 19
08131178
04113 (82
._
M qW .. —.-—..
Missocai.......
Montatm .
Nabraska
Neva
New Jersey
10/19(79
11101188
09t /89
06102181
02112181
08112/83
06109181
09 1 20183
09/30/85
04/16188
07/19179
06 /1 3182
06109181
09/07184
04/19182
06126191
11101188
09 l89
03104183
92 /10 /92
10/23192
01128191
09/30191
01104184
04/92/91
08112192
11/24/93
09 130183
09130191
11129/93
12115 /87
09127191
12112/85
04/29/83
07120/89
07/27/92
04 /13 /82
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 25 F Monday, February 7, 1994 I Notices
5601
STATE NPOES PROGRAM STATUS—Continued
112130193 1
Approved State
NPDES p0mm
program
Approved to regu.
late federal facih
ties
Approved State
pretreatment
gram
Ailix d general
pp program
New York .. ........_ .......
North Carolina
10128175
10119175
0 8 113(75
03111174
09126173
06 /30178
06I13/80
09I28 /84
2( 9 0
01128(83
03102179
06(30178
0 6 /14 /82
.........
07127183
03112181
10115192
09 /06 /91
oii2vgo
08117 /92
02123/82
08102191
..... . .. , . - ........ - .
North Dakota ...._...._ - ...........
Ohio .__ - .. .._....
Oregon
. .__. .. .. ...
Pennsy lvama............. .. ....._. ......
Rhode Island .__..__..
09117184
06110175
12(30/93
12(28177
07107187
03111174
06/30176
03131175
11114/73
09117184
09/26/80
12/30/93
09(30/86
07107187
09117184
04/09I82
12(30(93
06/ 10183
07107187
03116/82
...... .._.. ___..
04/14/89
09/30186
09/17/84
09/03192
‘12130/93
04118191
07/07/87
08/26193
....
05/20 / 91
09126189
South Carolina .. ... . .
South Dakota . .
Tennessee ..
Utah ._..._..__...,,...
Vermont . ...._.......
Virgin Isla nds ... - ......
..
... ._......
02(09/82
Virginia - ..
Washington ....._......._.... ... ........ ......
West Virginia ..
08110(82
02104/74
01/30175
05 /10182
11(28179
05116/81
05/10(82
12/24/80
..
0910/82
12/1 9/86
09/24/91
Wisconsin ....__........ — . ......._.
Wyoming ...__....__.. - ... ..... - ....
.. -
40
35
28
39
Nunter of Fully Authorized Programs (Federal Facilities. Pretreatment Gener . Pemsts).25.
New.
(FR Doc. 94—2696 Filed 2—4—94: 8:45 aml
siWNO COOS NOS d
FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
EXAMINATiON COUNCIL.
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
Census Data for Disclosure
Statements and Aggregate MSA
Reports
AGENCY: Federal Financial Institutions
Examination Council.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Federal Financial
Institutions Examination Council
(FFIEC) announces the availability for
purchase of census data that the FFIEC
will use in preparing the Home
Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)
individual disclosure statements and
aggregate reports for calendar year 1994.
The FFIEC ’s 1994 census data file.
which reflects data from the Bureau of
the Censuss 1990 decennial Census of
Population and Housing, includes
information on the population, income,
and housing characteristics of census
tracts that fall within the geographic
boundaries of metropolitan statistical
areas (MSAs) that were established by
the Office of Management and Budget
(0MB) in its announcement of June 30.
1993. These census data are used by the
FFIEC to prepare tables for individual
disclosure statements relating to the
disposition of mortgage loan
applications based on the characteristics
(racial composition, income
characteristics, and income and racial
composition) of the census tracts to
which the loan applications relate The
census data also are used to prepare two
tables in the aggregate reports. Lending
Institutions covered by HMDA do not
need the PTIEC’s census data file to
prepare their loan register data
submissions, but institutions may find
the census data useful for conducting
analyses of their institution’s lending
activity.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Glenn B. Canner. Senior Economist.
2021452—2910. Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System.
Washington. DC 20551.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Home
Mortgage Disclosure Act requires
lending Institutions located in
metropolitan areas to report annually
Information on the geographic
distribution of their home purchase and
home improvement loans, and also to
provide certain information about loan
applicants and borrowers. Covered
lenders submit a loan application
register to their supervisory agency (the
Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, the Office of
Thrift Supervision, the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, the
National Credit Union Administration.
or the Department of Housing and
Urban Development) on which they
record the location of the property to
which the Loan or application relates
(MSA. stale, county, and census tract)
for metropolitan areas in which they
have an office, as well as information
about the race or national origin, sex.
and income of applicants and borrowers
for such applications. The Federal
Reserve Board, on behalf of member
agencies of the Federal Financial
Institutions Examination Council and
HUD, processes the data and prepares
individual disclosure statements for
reporting institutions and also prepares
aggregate reports for all lenders in each
metropolitan area. The individual
disclosure statements are made
available to the public by each covered
institution and by central data
depositories in each MSA; the agg egate
reports are available at the central data
depositories.
The census data now available from
the FFIEC are the data that the FFIEC
will use to prepare Tables 7—1 through
7-6, which are contained both In the
individual disclosure statements and in
the aggregate teports, and to prepare
Table 9 and Table 10 of the aggregate
reports. Lending institutions do not
need the FFIEC’s census file in order to
prepare their HMDA—LAR for
submission to their supervisory
agencies, but they may obtain the
census data if they plan io conduct
statistical analyses examining the
demographics of the census tracts In
which they make loans .
Included in the FFl ’s 1994 census
file is information on the median family
Income of each census tract together
with an estimated median family
income for each MSA. These data were
obtained by the FFIEC from the 1990
-------
5198
Federal R4J r / VoL 59, No 23 / Thursday, Februasy 3. 1994 1 Notices
Dsteéjaaoary 2?. 1994.
Paul Lapel. .
Director. Regulator,’ Management DlvoioL
IFR Dec. 94-2430 Plied 3-2-04: L’tS emi
M.LDIO cOOS
(FRL-4 9 -2J
Mlthigan; Clean Air Act Section 182 (1)
NO, RACT Exemption Petition
AGENCY: United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA).
A flON Notice of availability .
SUMiIAAY The USEPA is announcing
that the State of Michigan has filed a
petition proposing that the southeast -‘
Michigan moderate aenne
nonattainment area be exempted Irv in
the requirement to iniplemeot oxides of
nitrogen (NOx) Reasonably AvniI hI4i
Control Technolo (RACy) tr ls
pursuant to se 1ton 182( 1) of the Clean
Air Act (Act). This petition is available
for public review.
FOfl FURThEN IN RMATI0N CONTACT
Daniel Meyer. Air Toxics and Radiation
Branch. Regulation Development
Section (AT-18J). United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
RegionS, Chicago. Illinois 60604.1312)
886—9401.
SUPPLEMB(TARY INTCRUSTION1 On
November 15.1993 the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources
submitted a petition pw .oaing that the
outheast Michigan moderate ozone
nonattainnieni area be exempted from
the requirement to implement NO.
RACr controls pursuant to section
182ff) of the Act. More specifically, this
exemption request is being made
according to provisions cited in a
USEPA memorandum dated Suptmnbec
17. 1992 from Michael Shapiro. to the
Regional Offices. The exemption request
is based on monitoring data which
demonstrates that the ozone standard
has been attained in this
area for the past 3 years. 1991 through
1993.
Dated: Devimber 30. 1903.
Veldea V.
Reg ,onoi 4 idn’dithimtor.
IFR Doc. 94-2442 FUe4 2-2--Ot 8:45 aml
U& G COOS ai
Change In Solicitation Procedures
Under the Small Susinosa
Competitiveness Demonstration
Program
ACTION Notice.
SUMMARy: Title VU of the “Busin
Opportunity Development Act of 198& ’
(PuI L. 100-656) etnhH I . d the
Business Competitiveness
Demonstration Program and designated
ten (19) agencies, including the
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA ). to conduct the program over a
four (4) year period from January 1.
1989 to December 31. 1992. The Small
Business Opportunity Enhancement Act
of 1992 (Pub. L. 102—386) extended the
demonstration program until September
30. 1998, and made certain changes in
the procedures for operation of the
demonstration program.
The law do At d four (4) industry
groups for testing whether the
competitive capabilities of the specified
industry groups will enable them to
compete successfully on an unrestricted
basis. The four (4) industry groups arm
Constjuction (except dredging);
architectural and engineering (A&E)
services (including surveying and
mapping); refuse systems and related
services (limited to trash/garbage
collection services); and non-nuclear
ship repair. Under the program. when a
participating agency does not meet its
small business participation goal, small
business set-asides must be reinstated In
the particular industry group. If small
business goals are achieved in
subsequent quarters. the agency may
cancel the sat-asides and return to lull
and open competition. The small
business goal is 40 percent of the total
contract dollars awarded for
construction, trashlgarbage collection
services, and non-nuclear ship repair
and 35 percent of the total contract
dollars awarded for axchitect.engineer
services. The program reserves for
emerging small businesses
procurements under 325 .000 for
construction, trash/garbage collection
services, and non-nuclear ship repair,
and, under 350.000 for architect-
engineer services.
This notice announces modifications
to EPA’s solicitation practices under the
demonstration program based on a
review of the Agency’s performance
during the period from Yely 1.1992 to
June 30. 1993. Modifications to
solicitation practices are set forth in the
Supplementary rntorrnation section
below and apply to solicitations issued
on or after the date of publication of this
notice.
EFFECTIV5 DATE This notice is effective
upon publir ation in the Federal
Register.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edward N. Chambers at (202) 260-6028.
.&
SUPPLEMENTARY U OMMAT
Construction Services in SIC Cn
1629,1761. and 1790
1. Procurements over 325.000 for
these SIC codes will be set aside for
small business when there is a
reasonable expectation of obtaining
competition from two or more small
businesses. If no expectation exists, the
procurements will be conducted on an
unrestricted basis.
2. Architect-Engineer Sarviom (All PSC
CM.e Under the Demonstration
Program
Procurements over 350.000 for all
architect-engineer services will be set
aside for small business when there is
a reasonable expectation of obtaining
competition front two or more setail
businesses. 11 no expectation exists, the
procurements will be conducted on an
unrestricted basis.
Dated: January 4. 1994.
Betty L Saucy.
Director. Office of Acqui.cia(on Mono genment
(FR Doc. 94—2438 Filed 2—2—94; 8:45 aml
WOO COOS
(FRL-4 833-T1
Revision of the Vermont National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Program To AuthorIze the
Iasu of General Permite
AGENCYt US. Environmental Protection
Agency.
*cliors: Notice of Approval of the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System General Permit
Program of the State of Vermont .
SUMMARy: On August 29.1993. the
Regional Administrator for the
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). Region 1, approved the State of
Vermont’s NaI4nn L Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General
Permit Program. On April 22. 1993. the
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
(Vermont ANR) submitted a formal
request for approval to revise its NPDES
Permit Program to authorirn the
of general NPDES permits.
This action authori s the State of
Vermont to Issue general permits in lieu
of individual NPDES permits. Based on
its review of Vermont’s legal authority.
EPA determined that no statutory or
regulatory changes were n wy for
the State to administer a general permit
program. EPA has thus determined
Vermont’s program modification to be
non-substantial.
FOR FURTHER INFOR 11ON CONTACT:
William Wandle, U.S. Environmental
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
-------
Fodsaul Regist / Vol. 59, No 23/ Thnr day , February 3, 1994 1 NotIces
5199
Protecti on Agency. Region I (WMN),
John F. Kennedy Federal Swiding.
Boston. Massachusetts 02203, (817)
565—3585.
WPLEMOffARY A11ON:
L Background
EPA regulations at 40 G ’R 122.28
provide for the issuance of general
permits to regulate the discherge of
wastowater which results from
naberandally . hrnk , operations, are of
the same typo was , require the same
effluent limitations or operating
conditions. require ilar monitoring
and me more appropriately controlled
under a general permit rather than by
individual permits.
Vermont was authorized to administer
the ! WDES proçem on March 11. 1974.
As previously u ipzvved, the State’s
program did not indnde provisions for
theiseuanceofg wal permits. A
number of categories of discharges can
be appropriately regulated by general
permits. For these masons, the Vermont
ANR requested a revision of the State’s
NPDES program to provide for the
issuance of general permits. The
categories proposed for coverage under
the general par ii1t ‘w
Storm water discharges, nen ’
cooling water. non .pnlhithn discharges
and classed of discharges where
Individual permits fez macb a 1ess
would be ci.h . aUy similes.
Each general permit will be subject to
EPA review and approval as provided
by 40 OR 123.44. PublIc notion end
opportunity to request a hw u i
provided for aech general permit.
-
Ca 1 -
-
-
ii.
The State of Vermont submitted in
support of Its request a program
desa*ç 1on, an Amendment to the
Memorand ua of Agreement. and copies
of the relevant statutes and regulations
for imphimAnting the program. lit
addithm. the Stale 5 t ,hr, itt I a
statement, dated Novnmb r 20, 1992. by
the Attorney General certifying, with
appropriate citations to the statutes and
regulations, that the State has adequate
legal authority to administer the general
permit program as required by 40 (7R
123.23(c3. The program desaiption
supplementing the original application
forth. NPDES program authority to
adminimer the g mnvnI permit program
includes the authority to perform each
of the activities set forth In 40 OR
122.28. The Amendment to the
Memorandum of Agroezevut Lvt u n
the State of Vermont ANR and EPA.
RPginn I dn igniites the procedures
through which general permits will be
Issued and administered by the State.
Based upon Vermont’s program
desaiption and upon Its experience in
aiImlnr ttering an approved NPDES
program. EPA has concluded that the
Stat, will bee, the ne. . - oosdures
and te &4i ,iM the general
— w
I D. Pedsael or o*e af&ppesval
ofStat .?WDESPrograins.r
Today’s Federal Register nation
the approval of Vermont’s
authority to lens. 9nu .l vi a . EPA
provides Federal Register notice of
STATE NPDES P GRAI STA11
1l
S# 1I74
6 174
11 74
01 1J75
08110 178
06 W74
6l74
lu, nI
ff4
OMPI4
174
0 6 1 10174
06 1 12174
actions by the Agency approving or
modifying a State NPDES program. The
following table provides the public with
a current listing of the status of NPDES
permitting authority throughout the
country.
IV. Review Under Executive Order
12291 and the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
The Office of Management and Budget
has AvsmptPd this rule front the review
requirements of Executive thder 12291
pursuant to section 8(b) of that Order.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
EPA is required to prepare a Reguiat ny
FI rthi11 y Analysis for all rules which
may have a sigeificant impact on a
suL t ut QI number of small entities.
Pursuant to sectIon 605W) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 LLS C. 601
et seq.). I certify that this State General
Permit Program will not have a
significant impact on a subst niia1
number of smell entities. Approval of
the Vermont NPDES State General
Permit Program establishes no new
substantive requirements. nor does it
alter the regulatory control over any
industrial category. Approval of the
Vermont NPDES State pør nit.
Program merely provides a simplified
admint L .(WD
Dated: January 25.1994.
Pm 4d. L.Maeney,
A m i e g a l 4d
11I01
0V 191
3 11
0t D4 4
.W2403
12J15 7
09W 191
07 120 189
7 1 27I
qam
A imved to
ro .
lot L L
A rowd
n g
—
p l1to
oim
I O
- - ‘I
061 50178
“WV
12 WTh
01 128189
06123181
11 7,
08131 1 78
10118179
1.1101189
07 118179
-------
5200
Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 23 / Thursday. February 3, 1994 F Notices
STATE
NPDES PROGRAM STATUS—Contiflued
12 / 93183
‘
s T s
Per d o ’
04/13/82
10 128 /75
10119/75
06113175
03 /11174
06/26/73
06130176
06/17184
06110176
1212817?
07 1 07 /87
03/11174
06 /3 0 /78
03 /31175
11114173
08110182
92104174
01/30/75
A ove
‘ J
04/13/82
06/13180
09 / 28/84
0 1Ifl190
01128183
03192179
3W78
06/17184
09126180
09130/88
07 / 87187
02J09/82
05110/82
11128179
05 /18/81
*ç roveti
preveasrerd
04/13/82
06/14/82
07127/83
(73112/81
09/17/84
04 /09/82
08110183
07107/87
03/16/82
04/14/89
09 /30/88
05/10/82
12/24/80
04 /13/8
10/15/ 9 2
09106 (91
O Idflf9O
08117192
92123/82
08102/91
09/17184
06/0 3 192
04/18/91
0fl07 1 87
‘08126/93
05/20 /91
09/26/89
08110/82
12/19/86
09 /24/91
New Jersey
New York ._. ..__._
North Carotna -_ - - — - -— . -..
.____
North Daicota
Ohis
Oregon —__________________________
PeanyNana
Rhode Island
South Carolina ._ .____________
Tennessee
.._
Utah - —___________________________
Vermont
Virgin Islande
Vlrgma . ____________________________
Washington -—
West Wginia.. .._
- ._..
Wisconsin .————__.__—
Wyorreng
-__ _ _._
TOTALS
39
34
27
38
NUITter 01 Fully Authonzed Pro ams (Federal Facilities. Pretreatment. General Pemits) .25
‘New.
‘Th u
IFR Dcc. 94—2436 FlIed 2—2-44:8:45 QinI
FEDERAL COMMUNICA11ONS
COMMISSION
Public Information Collection
R.qulresnento Submitted to Office of
Management and Budget for Review
January 27. 1994. -
The Federal C nmunicatlons
Commi ion has submitted the
following information collection
requirements to 0MB for review and
clearance under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S C. 3507).
Copies of these submissions may be
.pwchasad from the copy
contsactor. InternatIonal Treosmiption
Service, Inc., 2100 M S eet. NW., Suite
140. WashIngton. DC 20037, (202)837—
3800. For further Information on these
sithiiii ons contact Judy Boley, Federal
Communications Com ,i 4it lon, (202)
632—0278. Persons wishing to comment
on these Information collections should
contact Timothy Fain. Office of
Management and Budget, room 3235
NEOB. Washington, DC 20503. (202)
395—3561.
0MB Number 3060-0157.
Title: SectIon 73.99, Presunrise
Service Authorization (PSRA) and
Poatsunset Service Authorization
(PSSA).
Action: Extension of a currently
approved collection.
Respondents: Businesses or other for-
profit (Includiniemall businesses.
— Frequency of Response: On occasion
reporting requirement.
EstimotadAnnunl Burden: 360
responses; .25 hours average burden per
response; 90 hours total annual burden.
Needs and Uses: Section 73.99(e)
requires the licensee of an AM broadcast
station intending to operate with a
presunrise or postsunset service
authorization to submit by letter the
licensee’s name. caU letters, location.
the Intended service, and a desciption
of the method whereby any necessary
power reduction will be achieved. Upon
submission of this Information.
operation may begin without further
authority. The letter is used by FCC staff
to maintain complete technical
Information about the station to ensure
that the licensee is in full compIinnr
with the Cftnimission’s rules and will
not cause interference to other stations..
0MB Number 3060-0240.
Title: Section 74.651. EquIpment
aranges.
Action: Extension of a currently
approved collection.
Respondents: Businesses or other for.
profit (Including small businesses.
Frequency of Response: On occasion
reporting requirement.
Estimated Annual Burden: 24
responses; 1 hour average burden per
response: 24 hours total annual burden.
Needs and Uses: Section 74.651(b)
requires licensees of TV auxiliary
broadcast stations to notify the FCC in
writing of equipment changes which
may be wade at licensee’s dlsa-etlon
without use of a formal application
form. Thedata is used by FCC staff to
maintain complete technical records
regarding a licensee’s facilities.
0MB Number 3060-0241. -
Title: SectIon 74.633. Temporary
Authorization.
Action: Extension of a currently
approved collection.
Respondents: Businesses or other for-
profit (including small businesses.
Frequency of Response: On occasion
reporting requirement
Estimated Annual Burden: 60
responses; 2 hours average burden per
response: 120 hours total annual
burden. -
Needs and Uses: SectIon 74.633
requires that licensees of television
auxiliary broadcast stations submit an
Informal request for special temporary
authority to operate that station on a
temporary basis under certain
circumstances. The data is used by FCC
staff to ensure that interference will not
be caused to other established stations.
0MB Number 3060-0242.
Title: Section 74.604, Interference
Avoldancn.
Action: Extension of a currently
approved collection.
Respondents: Businesses or other for.
profit (including smell businesses.
Frequency of Response: On occasion
reporting requirement.
-------
L’J
Friday
January 14, 1994
.PartVI
Environmental
Protection Agency
Notice of Proposed General NPDES
Permit for Placer Mining In Alaska
r
— — —
a •C a
— ___
=
-------
• 2504
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGENCY
- Proposed General NPOES Permit for
Placer Mining In Alaska
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency. Region 10.
ACTION: Notice of a proposed general
permit.
SUMMARY: This proposed general permit
is intended to regu late placer mining
activities in the state of Alaska. EPA.
Region 10 has issued almost identical
individual permits to these facilities in
the past and intends to relieve some of
the administrative burden of issuing
individual permits by issuing this
general permit. When issued. the
proposed permit will establish effluent
limitations, standards, prohibitions and
other conditions on discharges from the
covered facilities. These conditions are
based on existing national effluent
guidelines and material contained in the
administrative record. A description of
the basis for the conditions and
requirements of the proposed general
- permit is given in the tact sheet
published below.
DATE&
Public Comment Penod: Interested
persons may submit comments on the
draft general permit ta EPA. Region 10
at the address below. Ccmmenis must
be received in the regional office by
February 14. W94.
Public Hewings: Public hearings on
the permit rnni4it4n ci ’Iuwlii lad j
Anchorage and Fairbanks. The
Anchorage bearing will be held on
February 7.1994. at the Federal
Building. 222 W 7th. mom 137. from
6:30 pm until all persons have been
heard. The Fairbanks hearing will be
held on February 9. 1994 at the
Fairbanks North Star Borough (Noel
Wien) Libraiy. 1215 Cowles Street. also
from 6:30 pm until all persons have
been heard. Persons interested in
obtaining information on the hearings
should contact Cindi Godsey at the
address below.
Request for Coverage: Wntten request
for coverage and authorization to
discharge under the general permit shall
be provided to EPA. Region 10, as
described in Part I.E. of the draft permit.
Authorization to discharge requires
written notification from EPA that
coverage has been granted and that a
speaflc permit number has been
assigned to the operation.
AOORrSS’S: Comments on the proposed
general permit should be sent to Cindi
Godsey; U S. EPA. Region 10: 1200
FOR FURThER INFORMAt ION CONW
Cindi Codsey at the Seattle eddrees
above or by telephone at (206) 3—
1755. .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMA11OI
Executive Order 12866 - -
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this action from the
review requirements of Exect ive Order
12866 pursuant to section 6 of that
order. -
Regulatory Flexibility Act
After review of the facts presented in
the notice printed above. I hm y tiIy
pursuant to the provision of S USC.
605(b) that this general NPDES permit
will not have a significont imped on a
substantial number of small ities.
Moreover, the permit reduces a
significant administrative burden on
regulated sources.
Dated. January 7. 1994.
Ciarlea E. Fuidley.
Director. Water Division.
FACT Sl T
United States Eavienmental Protecilo.
A acy. Region 10.1200 Sixth A ue..
WD—134, Seattle, Washington 98101. (206)
553—1214.
General Permit for Placer Miner, No,. AKC-
37 -
Prepared Issuance of a General
National Pollutant Discharge
Elunmation Sysime (NPDES) Permit Ta
Discharge Pollutants Pursuant to the
Provisions of the Clean Water Ad
fCWA) for Alaska Placer Miners
(Eacqit Those Identified in Pail III of
This Fact Sheet)
This fact sheet includes (a)
tentative determination of the
Environmental Protection Agency tEA)
to issue the permit. (b) information on
public comment, public headngs and
appeal. (c) the description of the
industry and proposed disctwges. Id)
other conditions and requirP”—. --
Persons wishing to comm an the
tentative determinations contained in
the proposed general permit may do so
before the expiration date of Public
Notice. All written comments should be
submitted to EPA as described in the
Public Comments Section of the
attached Public Notice.
After the expiration date of the Public
Notice, the Director, Water Divialon.
will make a final determination with
respect to issuance of the permit. The
tentative determination contained in the
proposed general permit will become
final conditions if no suhctantive
comments are received during public
comment period.
The permit will become effective 30
days after the final determination is
made, unless a request for an
evidentiary hearing is submitted s uhin
30 days after receipt of the final
deternination. An evidentiary hearing
request must meet all the requirements
of 40 CFR 124.74 and set forth material
issues of fact relevant to the pern ut
issuance. The proposed NPDES general
permit and other related documents are
on file and may be inspected and copies
made at the above address any time
between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p m.. Monday
through Friday. Copies and other
information may be requested by
writing to EPA at the above address to
the attention of the Water Permits
Section. or by calling (2061 553—8332.
This matenal is also available from the
EPA Alaska Operations Office, room
537, Federal Building. 222 West 7th
Avenue. Anchorage. Maska 99513—7588
or Alaska Operations Offit.e. 410
Willoughby Avenue. suite 100. Juneau.
Alaska 99801 or the Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation.
Northern Regional Office. 610
University Avenue, Fairbanks. Alaska
99709.
Terh, .’ I Information
L Background Information
A. Permit Coverage
1.Cenera!Perm:t.a. Section 301(a) of
the CWA provides that the discharge of
pollutants is unlawful except in
accordance with a National Pollutant
Disc) arge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit. Although such permits have
been issued to individual dischargers.
EPA’s regulations do authorize the
Issuance of “general permits” to
categories of discharges (40 CFR 122.28)
when a number of point sources are:
(1) Located within the same
geographic area and warrant similar
pollution control measures:
(2) Involve the same or substantially
similar types of operations;
- (3) Discharge the same types of
astes;
(4) Require the same effluent
limitations or operating conditions:
(5) Require the same or similar
monitoring requirements: and
(6) In the opinion of the Director, are
more appropriately controlled under a
general permit than under individual
permits.
b. Like individual permits. a violat
ofacondition contained in a general
permit constitutes a violation of the At.
and subjects the owner or operator of
the permitted facility to the penalties
specified in section 309 of the Ai:t.
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 10 / Friday. January 14. 1994/ NotIces
Sixth Aveom WD—134: Seattle.
: . ,W n oa 98101.
-------
r
F .J J Be sterF VoL 5g. No. tO t F iday. y nii iry 14. toot £ f 1o(Ic
A Notfceoflntent (NOiltube
covered under this General Permit Is
required (40 GR I 8(bJ(2liuI) The
requirements are outlined in PUn I.E. ot
the permit. An Annual Placer Mining
Application would be acceptable if it
contains all the items specified i n the
d. Coverage tinder this permit will
expire five (5) years from the date of
• u .uui.c . ft is EPA S positIon (40 (7R
- .. 122.28(bJ(fl7 that an expired general
permit continues in flirve and ef ct
unni a new general permit is Lssued
Only those fadlities authorized to
discharge under the expiring general
permit and submit an NO! 90 days prior
to the expiration of this general permit
• are covered by the atuitinued permit.
2. Types of Placer Mine Opemtwns
Covered by the Permit. EPA is proposing
to issue a General NPDES penuft for
Alaska placer reining operations which
are facilities that mine and process gold
placer ores using gravity separation
methods to recover the gold metal
contained in the ate. Thi permit
applies to all open-cut and mechanical
dredge (not suction dredgesl gold placer
mines except those open-cut arlees that
mine lass than 1.500 cubic yards of
placer ore per mining season and
dredges that remove less than 30.000
cubic yards of placer ore per mining
season. These operations are covered by
the effluent guidelines and desorlbed in
40 n 440. T4oCb EPA has completed
a literature research proiect considering
the enviivnmental effects of all suction
dredge operaHon and potential controls
that could be placed on them. Based on
this research. EPA has concluded that
suction dredges with intake hoses of
greater than 4 Inches will be covered by
this permit.
Operations utilizing hy&aulic
removal of overburden are covered by
this permit.
This permit does not authonza
discharges resulting from beneficiati on
methods utilizing cyanidation. froth
flotation. heop or vat leaching and
mercury amalgemetf ret.
3. Limit di ana on Coverage. Many
streams arid stream reaches in Alaska
have been desfgnated as pert of the
federal wild and scenic rivers system or
as a Conservation Sptem Unit (CSU) by
the federal government. Additional
conditions may be reqeired by the
Alaska Department of Fish and Cam, in
resident and anathomous fish streams.
“The Atlas to the Catalog of Waters
Important for Spawning. Rearing or
Migration of Anadromons Plsh’ lists the
streams hr the State which require a
Habitat permit hem the Alaska
Department of Fish and Came. Because
this permft does not relieve a permlttee
of the requirements of other applicable
federal. state or local laws. permiuess
should contact the appropnala stat. or
federal agencies to inquire about’
additIonal permits that may be required.
4. rndivithiol Permits. Owners or
operators authorized by a generaL permit
may be excepted from owerag. by a
general permit by applying to the.
Directo; of the NPD program for an
individual permit. This vaqu i may be
made by submitting an L ’ DES p rssix
application. togotber with supporting
documentation for the request no Istar
than 90 daysder p M n by WA
of the final g aI permit Intbs
Federal Register, or 180 days prk to
the commen enI of operation of a
new source or new discharger. The
Director may requare any person
anthormid by a genital permit to apply
for and obtain on individual permit . or
any inteIssied person may petition the
Director to take this action. The Disector
may consider the issuance dinthvid
permits when:
a. The c igI i discharge orth. • -
cumulative number .1 di iges Wars
a significant cosithbotor of pskli i.xi
b. Tb. diothug Is net hi
with the tma and condition. dthe
general p.z-wil . . . -
c. A change bul ocaw’red hr the
avaiblility of demonstrated Iechaole
or practices the c ukul
of pollutants applicable to the poi.at
source;
d. Effluent limitations guidelines am
subscqoently promulgated for the point
sources by the general permit
e. A Water Qualify Management plan
contrining requirements applicable to
such point sources (a approved or
f.Th e reçzirenientslistedlntho
• previous paugruphs are not met.
8. Description of the Industry
1. MechonkrzI Operufions (Traditional
Shucing). Pleom mining involves the
mining and esne en of gold or other
heavy metals and rmnerah primarily
from alhwial deposits. These døpcsits
may be in existing t5u beds or
ancient often bw’ied stiuma deposits. I.e.
paleo or fossil placers. Many Alaskan
placer deposits consist of
unconsolidated clay, sand, grave!.
cobble and boulders that contain very
small amounts of native gold or other
precious metals. Most are steam
deposits and ur along present stream
valleys or on benches or terraces above
existing tr ms . Beach placer deposits
have been and continue to be important
producers in Alaska. These deposits.
most notable near Momo, include both
submerged and elevated beach placer
deposIts.
Essental fl9 flfli 1IL of place_i
mining includ overburden removal,
mining of the gold piecer gravels aed
processing (gold recovery),
a. Over6urden Reinovvi. Various types
of overburden inclade barren alluvial
gravels, broken slide rock or gisdal
deposits.. In some peril of Ah kia the
pay gravels are overlaid by silty.
organic.rich deposits o(barren. frozen
material generally comprised of wind-
blown particles (mess). Particularly high
Ice content Is common Most facilities
utilIze mechanical methods for removal
of oveiburdezi because they generally
use the same excavating equipment for
mining.____
Overb den cam alsobe removed by
hyth’anliding. Rydrauffcking consists
of the loosening of material by water
delivered trader piesewe through a
hydrsrthc giant (monitor!. The material
then flows. usually by gravity , to the
sluice box if the L l tub,
pro ed with the mineral bearing
material below’. Overburden censfsting
of barrett material may be directed away
from the sluice box so that only mineral
bu.erfrig mae . .al is in the
sluice.
b 1 Mining Methods. PTacer mining
methods range from dredging systems to
open-cut mining. Dredging systems are
classified as hydraulic c i medienicel.
depending on th. methods of digging. A
floating dredge awrsists o le sepperting
hull with emirthig control system.
excavating and lifting mechanism. gold
recovery circuits, arid waste dispose)
system. They are all designed to work as
a unit to dig. classff i, beneficiate ores
and dispose of waste. Suction dredges .
the most common hydraulic dredging
system. am quite popular in Alaska with
the sinai) or reasational gold placer
A bucket-line dredge has been the
traditional gold placer mechanical
dredging tool in Alaska Excavation
equipment consists of. chain of
burfr . traveling cuntinuo&y around
atrirana plste.girderladdez that scoop
up a hard as they are forced against the
mining lace while pivutiua a,trwid the
lower tumbler arid then dump they
pivot around the upper tumbler. The
ladder is raised or lowered as required
bya large hoisthigwincb through.
system of cables and sheaves. About six
placer miners operate bucket-line
dredges in Alacka
c. Ir zngMethcde. A large
percentage of the present gold placer
mining operations use seine typ. of
sluice box to perform the primary
processing function. beneficiatlon. An
inaeasing number of pg plants are also
being used. Many operations make use
of feed size classification which
-------
2506
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 10 / Friday, January 1.4. 1994 1 Notices
- .- -.. -
Involves the physical separation of large
rocks and boulder, fiiw smaller
materials such as gravel and sand. The
object of classification is to prevent the
processing of large-sized material which
is unlikely to contain gold values.
Commonly used dassification
equipment includes: grizzlies. trommels
and static or vibrating saeens. The most
common gold recovery method is
sluicing. A sluice is a long, sloped
trough into which water is directed to
effectuate separation of gold from ore. A
slurry of water and ore flows down the
sluice and the gold. due to its relatively
high density. is trapped in riffles along
the sluice.
2. Suction Dredging. A suction dredge
is a mechanical device which floats on
the stream surface and which pumps
stream water and stream bed material
through a suction intake conduit to a
sluice box from which gold or other
minerals may be recovered. -
The discharge from suction dredges
consists totally of stream water and bed
material. These discharges are becoming
numerous in the state. The discharge
limits and monitoring requirements are
identical for the majority of these
discharges. This category of discharges
meets the qualifications of 40 CFR
122.59 for the issuance of General
Discharge Permits. This general
discharge permit will expedite
processing the numerous applications
and provide the same regulatory
controls over the discharges as an
individual permit would.
U. Effluent Chamctenstics
Discharges from placer mining
operations consist of water and the
naturally oocwnng materials found in
the alluvial deposits (e.g. sand, silt, clay.
trace minerals and metals. etc.). Some of
the elements measured in placer mine
effluent are derived principally from
sulfide, oxide, carbonate, and silicate
mineral spaces. and include antimony,
arsenic, cadmium, copper. iron, lead.
mercury. nickel, silver, and zinc. Most
of these parameters are found in trace
amounts and ate of little significance.
Based on review of sampling data
collected by EPA and upon evaluation
of Alaska Water Quality Standards
(WQS). EPA has concluded that the
pollutants of primary concern are
settleable solids, turbidity. and arsenic.
Arsenic is the only toxic pollutant of
concern due to its naturally occumng
abundance in most Alaskan soils.
III. Basis for Effluent Limitations
A. Background
Effluent limits required in this permit
icr the control of pollutants are
published in 40 CFR part 440. Subpart
M—Gold Placer Mine Subcategory.
which was promulgated May 24. 1988.
in 53 FR 18764. AddItional information
regarding the basis for establishing the
effluent limits is summarized in the
EPA publication titled “Development
Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Ore
Mining and Dressing Point Source
Category—Cold Placer Mine
Subcategory” (May 1988).
This final rule establishes effluent
limitations guidelines and standards
based on the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT). and
new source performance standards
(NSPS) based on the best available
demonstrated technology. The BAT and
NSPS limitations represent the
minimum technology required to be in
place for all placer mining operations
covered under 40 R part 440, subpart
M.
Section 402(0) of the Act stipulates
that NPDES permits may not be reissued
to contain effluent limitations that are
less stringent than comparable water
quality standards and technology based
effluent limitations in the previous
permit. EPA has determined that this
general permit complies with these anti-
backsliding provisions of the Act.
B. Technology-Based Limitations
1. Mechanical Operations. The CWA
requires industries to apply treatment
technology representing BAT that is
economically achievable. The BAT
requirements specify the use of settling
ponds plus total recirculation of process
wastewater as the selected treatment
technology. However, the regulation
does allow the discharge of incidental
waters (including waters that enter a -
mine through precipitation, snow melt,
drainage water, ground water
infiltration and the melting of
permafrost) which have commingled
with process waters, provided that these
incidental waters are in excess of the
make-up water required, ate treated in
settling ponds and do not exceed 0.2
mill settleable solids prior to discharge.
For the purpose of this permit.
discharged wastewater consists of
incidental waters commingled with
process waters used to move the ore to
and through the beneficiation process.
water used to aid in classification, and
water used in gravity separation.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 440143, BAT
requirements are as follows:
a. The concentration of settleable
solids in wastewater discharged from an
open-cut mine plant or a dredge plant
site must not exceed an instantaneo -
maximum of 0.2 mI/I.
b. The volume of wastewater whit.
may be discharged from an open-cut
mine plant or dredge plant site must not
exceed the volume of infiltration,
drainage and mine drainage waters
which is in excess of’ the make-up water
required for operation of the
beneficiacion process.
These technology-based requirements
are specified in Parts ll.A.ia. and b. of
the proposed permit.
The effect of requirement Il.A.2. of the
proposed permit is to prohibit the
discharge of any wastewater during
periods when new water is allowed to
enter the plant site.
C. Water Quality Based Limits
in addition to the BAT effluent
limitations, the permit includes effluent
limitations which are required to ensure
compliance with WQS (Alaska
Regulations 18 A.AC 70). These
standards vary with the beneficial use
they are established to protect. In water
bodies with more than one designated
beneficial use, the more restrictive
ci’iteria apply.
The WQS protect most fresh water
sources for use in drinking, agriculture.
aquaculture and industrial water
supply. contact and secondary
recreation, and the growth and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and other
aquatic life (Alaska Regulations 18 AAC
70.050). All permits being issued in this
round of permitting must protect for all
the above uses.
EPA has concluded, based on review
of the WQS and available sampling data.
that the parameters of turbidity and
is ii c must be limited in order to meet
the State WQS. Also, the sediment
standard must be applied to discharges
from operations utilizing the hydraulic
removal of overburden. The arsenic.
turbidity and sediment limits were -
established pursuant to section
30 1(b)U)(CJ of the CWA. which requires
imposition of” any more stringent
limitation, including those necessary to
meet water quality standards. • or
required to implement any applicable
water quality standard established
pursuant to this Act.” The NPDES
regulations. at 40 CFR 122.44(d), require
NPDES permits to include conditions to
“Achieve water quality standards
established under section 303 of CWA
•••,‘
1. Turbidity’ a. Mechanical and
Hydraulic Removal of Overburden
According to the WQS. the most
restrictive turbidity critena applies t.
fresh water sources classified for water
contact recreation uses. These criteria
(18 AAC 70.020(b)(1)(B)(iH4)) state that
-------
Federal e erfr VoL 5fl. . ta IF&Lay. ‘ y 14.1 9I I IQlw
C) dOWDS(reOUi twb.d8Ly after iauun
where the allowable increase 5
NTTJ above beckgTound (C .5
Th
Qu = stream flow downstream Eom any
diversion and upstream from the
dischargs
Q • effluent flow ;and. -
= total stream flow downstream (iota
thschalgfl after compkzam
“ Adefaullv.1secf1OgI1kI
mrnul (GPM3 wiD be uasd if the 1401
states that z o diecbwF wii b e
achieved. The xmatiim that on be
eubioMled bj the pwmi to i-.’--—-e
the apprvpsiate iwbithty bmi the
faalily ta the efikuent miá i zvwg
stre flow rates. lbs rw..w...
flow rate mint be measured ap ea
from the discbs s poi ntand -..
dowi eam from any diveraisms -
Recesvuig is flow vebes s be
obtained I r m a the ADNL Dlvi on ci
Mining. up request by the -
ADNR methodology for deteimln$n
up eam flow ones equatiow developed
by Ashloo and Carlme ? I1984J The
maximnm effluent cflecherge flow m
be esumeted by the piwIitu.vr and i t
account for the i of aD exs s
incidental waters.
Perreittees zu iusttng e higher ‘ -
turbidity limitation must submit
neceesary tn&, atiofl to ‘A with the
NOL This applies to eff parmnhttees.
including chose wlic have submitted
this rypeaf information in the past. in
order to assure that afl sire-specific
information is up-to-date.
b. Suctioa Dredg ng .The daiTy visual
inspect(on during operation alan ares
downstream of the suction dredge is
based on research published in the
scientific Literature (Griffith and
Andretes tgal.Hassles at aL 1988.
Harvey 1986. Huber and 8fnn4 t 1992.
Thomas 19851 and on wonitoring&m.
by Alaska Department of Environmental
C’ vaZioa fAD C1 (Ron McA1 er.
ADEC. personal c c he
most cases. water quality rueoverwl
rapidly below the dredge. ADEC found
that turbidity was elevated I to 4.5 PITt)
.500 feet dcei eata of as operating 10
inch dredge. The daily visual inapecskia
during operation should assure that the
water quality standard for turbidity is - -
met.
2. A,senic—Mechoxskal and
Hydraofrc Removal v4Overburden ‘A
has concluded. based on avaifabfe
sampling data. that arsenic is commonly
associated with placer mining wastes.
Locally. it Is the mast abundant toxic
metal pn .vflt . For this reason. PA has
determined that arsenic Is a pollutant of
concern. Adthtfonally. although several
studies by EPA have indicated a
____ in levels of arsenic is places
mfning effluent ac&result of reducing
saLt leable solids toOl mill. EP has
coi rluA that there reduced levels of
arsenic ate not cosisis’. ”Ly adequate to
achieve WQS.
In establishing the a i limit, the
“Amendments to the Water Quality
Standards F.eguIa1icn Comprianc. with
CWA section 303 cX23W3; Final fluW’
157 FR6084. Tuesday. December 22.
19923 are used. This rulam iking
promulgated ththernacalrspeQfic
numeric criteria for peicrity tesic
pollutants n cw.y to bring all C .t nt
into omnpTu vt with the reqmsoanlc
- of the CWA section 303(cff21(B). Tb.
primary Ioois of th. rule is the
incliisioao(ths Iede,ak water cpiality
criteria for p&” ’° t(4in State
standardsas” ’y to support water
quality-based control proejaas fe.g, -
NPDES psrmi*4. The lederal i!ia6rd of
.0.18 pglt ntaL recoverable arsenic is
applicable toi .f - and this wrn1& r
has been used to derive theend .of pipe
___for the draft pernui&
• Mixing ‘ ‘ are allowed under the
Alaska standards for some poihuant . -
discharges. However. 15 A . c7O0a2(al
states’.’ • lnapplyingthe watar
quality criteuia set out in this diaptmx.
the department will, upon application
and I a discretio n.prescibs in its
permits or onti5ca it i a vohime of
dilution for ao.ninni ori ithct*n
within a recmving water nalesa
pollutants discharged could
bioaccumulata concentrate or persist in
the environment cause cardnogenic.
mutagenic. or teratogenic effects or
otherwise present a risk to human
health’ • “Arsenicinacarcmogea.
In a letter, dated March 24. 1992.. from
the AIas&a Department of
Environmental Conservation
Commissioner. Tohit Sandor. to EPA
Water Division Director. Charles
Findley. the State has lulw iJ this to
mean that “ ‘ ‘a mixing annsm.y be
prescribed where there no reescarehia
expect oo of an adverse effect en
h’ ’ health or life. based on
site-specific. i.iir 1 physical and -
biological cbaractaristlcs .’ EPA in not -
proposing a mixing zone for arsenic. hal
would nrh .A . 5 m ,gh for
determining a mixing onee in the permit
if the Department determines that such
a mixmg appropriate and is lii
compliance with WQS.
Tw, options are given to the
permitte. to determine the arsenic limit
If the natural” background Is not
measured, the effluent limit ía set
according to federal standard at O.IaiatJ
L The other o tioo depends en the
“naturar baC gtOUZId levels of arsenic
present in the receiving water. The
2.507
turbidiry 5hafluotescmds
NTU above natural conditions wbe the
natural turbidity is SC NT !) or fess and
more than 10% increase in turbidity
when the natum) condition Is more than
50 NTU. not to exceed a manimum
lfl .nv of t5 NflL ’ The proposed
draft permit contains a turbidity limit
that would assure compliance with
watea.quality standards under worst
case conditions. That is. the turbidity in
the effluent must not exceed 5 NTIJs
above the background turbidity level in
the receiving stream. This condition
accounts for naturally o ”g
turbidity in the receiving water and
allows the effluenL to contain an
additional 5 l&TU so( turbidity where
the recetvlng w is natieniky torbiL
The permit ,‘iwlihon does notacccunt
for those situauons where neturally - - .
occurring turbidity would allowan
increase of up totS P4TL)s.nor does it
account for the dilution eflocts of the
receiving stream. Tb. reason for
assunung worst case coadiuiona is that
EPA does not have current si&e .specillc -
- information tosssabl end-of-pipe -
limitations for each of the permits being
proc ’ d .
Although worat case
assumed in the proposed dealt permit.
EPA will consider modifying the t4 ’IU
limitation to ontIortheclihition
effects of the alz i . . EPA ’s
approach m seg bigherturbidity -
ljmdatucris is dependent upon receipt of
the NOtuath heimmanon (mm the
permitlee or free, the Alaska
Department of t’imwal Resources
ADNR) acting on behalf of cbs
permnitiee demc sting that the
dilution effect oith i rvingwater
ustifles a has *uig ul limit EPA is
operating inider the awampdon thai the
permit applicant bears the herden of
4 providing information i moary to
issue the pemut KOCFR I2 t35(a tfl.
Where applicant does net provide
the nte.apeczflc isfoimoflon that wcmld
justify a less stringent turbidity it.
the permit tented to. tile will concern
- the turb.dr?y lim proposed in the draft
permit -
The procedures asedtoca?culatea
higher turbidity lImit are thesamne .as
those used intfie placermfnmgpennits
issued since 1986-The turbidity limit is
based an utilizing a mass balance
equaf run which relates up U ’5uw
receiving water flow and turbidity to
effluent flow and turbidity. The basic
Form of this equation is
Q,C,.Q C=QC .
where
C upsveem turbidity:
= effluent rurbfdIty
L
-------
2508
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 10 I Friday, January 14. 1994 / Notices
I “natural” background is defined as the
total recoverable arsenic level upstream’
from all mining and other man-made
disturbances. The WQS. 18 AC -
70.010(a). stales that “mb person may
conduct an operation thal
contributes to a violation of th water
quality standards If the
“natural” background levels are already
above the federal standard, any
discharge at or below the “natural”
background level will not elevate the
existing concentrations in the stream
thus not contributing further to a
violation of WQS. The “natural”’
background data must be provided with
the annual Discharge Monitoring Report
(DMR). -
Because the effluent limitation of 0.18
ljg/L is not quantifiable using the EPA
approved analytical method (206.2).
EPA has set a reporting threshold to
measure the highest acceptable
quantification level for this parameter.
When results cannot be quantified.
values below the method detection level
Cl ig/L) shall be report as zero and
values above the method detection level
but below the minimum level (4 iig/L)
reported at ½ the minimum level or 2
&aglL This reporting threshold does not
authorize the discharge of this
parameter in excess of the effluent
limitation.
3. Sediment. The sediment standard
-(18 ACC 70.020) is a narrative standard
which reads. “No inc ease in
concentration of sediment, including
settleable solids, above natural
conditicn..” The method indicated for
measuring sediments is the use of an
linhoff cone. The detection limit, the
lowest measurable value, of an imhofT
cone is 0.2 mI/I. Therefore the
maximum limit for sediment wall be 0 2
mi/I measured as settleable solids for
operations utilizing hydraulic removal
of overburden.
IV. Basis for Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
A. Monitoring: All self’monitoring
requirements considered the remoteness
of the mining operations, the magnitnue
of the pollutants discharged. and the
- practicability of maintaining a valid
quality assurance program.
1. The measurement of seitleable —
solids is an indication of overall
treatment efikiency. The permit
requires monitonng for muleable solids
once per day during periods of
discharge. If there is a discharge to
waters of the United States, permittees
are required to sample for settleable
solids on a daily basis, even if sluicing
does not occur. This is required because
the operator Is responsible at all times
for the condition of the wastewater
entering the receiving stream. Also, the
results from settleable solids sampling
can give the operator an immediate
indication of the overall effectiveness of
the treatment system and thus allow
advanced planning for treatment system
maintenance.
2. EPA has concluded that the
monitoring frequency for turbidity and
arsenic will be once per season.
Monitoring for these pollutants have
been established at less frequent
intervals because sampling and analysis
for these parameters are more difficult
and costly. Samples for monitoring
purposes must be taken during sluicing
or discharge at a time when the
operation has reached equilibrium. For
example. samples should be taken when
sluice paydirt loading and effluent
discharge are fairly constant. -
3. Effluent flow monitoring is also
required in the proposed permit. The
purpose of this requirement is to assess
the pollutant loading discharged into
the receiving water.
4. The visual inspection provision in
Part ll.D.1. of the proposed permit is
required to assure against discharges
resulting from structural failure of
berms. dikes, dams and other water
control structures. A visual inspection is
an effective tool for assuring proper
operation and maintenance.
5. Monitoring provisions for turbidity.
arsenic. settleable solids, and flow (in
Parts ILD.1.c.. d., a.. and f., respectively)
are included in the proposed permit.
These provisions are included to
explain how, when, and where to
collect these samples.
8. Reporting. 1. Reporting of effluent
violations is required in writing within
a reasonable time period. This ts
in Permit Part IV G Li..
2. Reporting of .i iual violations from
suction dredges is required in writing
within a reasonable time period. This is
found in Permit Part fl.D.2.b.
3.The results of all monitoring or
notice of no discharge must be reported
to EPA by November 30 of each year.
This is found in Permit p ivu
V. Best Management Practices (HMPs)
A. Mechanical and Hydraulic Removal
of Overburden
1. BMP conditions in Permit Parts
m.A.1. to fll.A.5. of the proposed permit
w. r’ ile *’lopsad pursuant to section
3U4 ,i ot t”.e CWA These BPv s are
establ shr’d ‘n .i ’; FR 4’O 148 and are
necessery tot’ i. i.tr.i 1 nd tr*’nlrntrnt of
the drain e and infiltration water at
gold placer mines .ind to prevent solids
and toxic metals from being rek,ased to
the receiving streams.
a. The intent of Permit Part II1.A.l. is
to avoid contamination of nonprocess
water, reduce the volume of water
requiring treatment and maximize th
retention time and the settling capac.
of the settling ponds. The diversion
must totally circumvei’tt any gold . -
recovery units, treatment facilities, etc.
Any mine drainage sources that pass
through the actual mining area and are
subiect to transporting pollutants must
be treated prior to discharge.
b. Permit Part Ill.A.2. is required to
assure that water retention devices are
constructed appropriately. This may be
achieved by utilizing on site material in
a manner that the fine sealing material
(such as clays) are mixed in the berms
with coarser materials. Berms should be
toed into the underlying earth.
constructed In layers or Lifts and each
layer thoroughly compacted to ensure
mechanical and watertight integritY of
the berms. Other impermeable material
such as plastic sheets or membranes
may be used inside the berrns when
sealing fines are unavailable or in short
supply. The side slope of berms should
not be greater than the naI ,r l an ot
repose of ‘ne m,ueriass uced n the
ber as or a slopø ul 2 1. wnichever is
flar’ ’
c. rhe intent of Permit Part I [ l.A.3 is
to ensure that the investment in
pollution control pay the maximum
benefit in terms of reduced pollutant
volumes reaching water of the Unitec
States. These measures may include
location of the storage ponds and
storage areas to assure that they wilt not
be washed out by reasonably predictable
flooding or by the return of a relocated
stream to it original stream bed.
Materials removed from settling ponds
shoutd,be s Iaced in bermed areas where
;‘.iai ‘ emateraaIs crinnol ‘low
r.uet t sid a’l he ij ,ted Statpc
It may be nccessary. in bomi’ ca s. to
collect such liquids arid pump or divert
them back to the settling pond for
treatment. This requirement applies
both during the active mining season
and at all other times until reclamatton
is completed.
d. Permit Part IIl.. , ,
assure that the amount ui .ictd ,iie(
that is dischar2ed is kept to d I LnInIUrn
e. The provisions ,i l’esnii Part
Ifl.A.5. will ensure that w er control
devices are adequately maintained. This
specifies that structures should be
incnprtpd on a regular basis for any
sigz ‘ t tructural weakness or incipient
failure. Whenever such weakness or
incipient failure becomes evidenu. repair
or augmentation of the structure to
reasonahly ensure against catastrophi
failure shall be made immediately
2. BMP condition Permit Part lli.A.R
of the proposed permit is required
pursuani to 40 CFR 122.44 1k)(3). The
-------
2509
permit. Part m.D.OflhI iroposed “ .‘
permit establishes the specific
conditions which must be met In order
to be eligible for the storm exemption.
This exemption is designed to provide
an affirmative defense to an
enforcement action. Therefore, the
operator has the burden of
demonstrating to the appropriate
authority that the above conditions have
been met. •. -
VW. Prohibitions
A. Part LC. has been incorporated into
the proposed permit to further clarify
the discharges that will be authorized
under this permit. ,- .. .-.
B. Part fl.A.2. of the proposed permit
is required to assuie compliance with
the technology.based requirements
established in Part fl.A.1.a. of the
proposed permit.
New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) - :..‘-
Pursuant to section 301 of the CWA.
NSPS (40 R 440.144) were -.
promulgated for gold placer mine
facilities. NSPS apply to new mines
determined to be new sources by virtue
of their activities occurring after
promulgation of the rule (May 24. 1988).
The NSPS for gold placer mining
facilities are based on the same
treatment technology as BAT, which
consists of simple settling plus
rediculation of all process water. Since
BAT is based on th most stringent
demonstrated technology that is
available for treating gold placer mine
wastewater, those mines which are new
sources will not be subject to controls
more stringent thai those applicable to
existing mines. . . -,
In accordance with section 511(c)(1)
of the CWA. NPDES permits for new
sources are subject to the provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). NEPA requires that, prior to the
Issuance of an NPDES permit to a new
source facility, an Environmental
Assessment (EA) must be prepared to
determine the potential fo! any
significant impacts on the quality of the
human environment resulting from -
operation of the new source. Pennit part
I.E.1. requires that new facilities submit
a notice of intent by January 1 of the
year of discharge. This will allow
adequate time to complete EAs for each
new source prior to the mining season.
If the EA indicates that significant
adverse environmental impacts may
occur, then the applicant must prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS). However, ii the EA indicates that
significant impacts are not anticipated.
a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FNSI) shall be issued and the facility
Federal Register / Vol. 59,No. 10 I Friday’, January 14. 1994 I Notices
I
purpose of this requirement is to assure - VI. Other Requirements’
that all reasonable measures are taken to
decrease the amount of pollutants being A. Spill Prevention Contr I and
discharged to waters of the United ., . Contaizunent (SPCC) Plan, ...
States. . . - Part lU.C. of the proposed pe?mit was
3. The same BMPs are required of • established in accordance with 40, R
operations utilizing hydraulic removal 122.44(k)(3). The purpose of this
of overburden pursuant to 40 R requirement is to control the potential
122.44(k)(3l. The purpose of these discharge of pollutants, resulting from
requirements is to assure that reasonable fuel spills, from entering receiving
measures are taken to decrease the waters. .‘. . - ,. ,, .,, ,,
amount of pollutants being discharged B. Endangered Species ..: ‘‘
to waters of the United Slates.
‘A species list was provided by the
B. Suction Dredging •. ‘. .‘ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the
The BMPs are required pursuant 1040 state of Alaska. The recommended
. CFR 122.44(k)(3). . protection measures for the species of
1. Dredging is permitted only in the concern during the nesting period
active stream channel where the prohibits alterations of limited, high, —
dredging spoils are relatively clean and quality habitat which could . .
will cause minimum turbidity when . detrimentally and significantly’reduce
returned to the stream. The material that prey availability. Since this general
runs through a suction dredge flows water discharge permit is written to
downstream and setiles among gravel . protect aquatic life or human health
and rocks in the sueambed. Too much ‘a’itena (whichever Is more stringent).
silt and sand make it difficult for the no alterations of habitat due to water
salmon to dig suitable gravel nests discharges authorized by this permit
(redds) and can also smother fish eggs . should occur. Because of this. EPA has
already deposited. . determined that formal consultatien for
2. Wherever practicable, the dredge section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
shall be set to discharge into a quiet Is not necessary for existing facilities.
pool where settling of dredge spoils can Environmental A s *ainents will be
occur more rapidly. This will cause In- completed for each new source -. ‘
stream turbidity to be minimized and discharge as is stated in Part LA.3. of the
localized to the general area of the - perthit. Any consultation necessary to
dredging activity. .. - . . comply with the Endangered Species
3. The purpose of this requirement is Act will be performed at this time. -
to control the potential discharge of
pollutants, resulting from fuel spills. . VII. Storm Exemption .. .. -.
from entering receiving waters. Fail m.D. of the proposed permit
4. Dredging is not permitted during establishes a storm exemption provision
the periods that fish eggs could be in the which authorizes exceedences of
gravel at the dredge site. The greatest technql 9 gy-based effluent limitations
single effect a su ction dredge has on the and standards provided that the -
environment is the danger it poses to permittee meets certain design and
fish. The dredge pump forces water and operational criteria. This provision is
gravel through the nozzle and hose. Fish reoui?bd pursuant to 40 G’R 440.141(b).
eggs taken up with gravel cannot ‘ : this provision allows for the ..
survive the shock. pressure. and . .. unavoidable exceedence of technology-
battering and pounding that comes with. based emuent limitations during storms
moving through the hose and sluice. If . of intensity greater than or equal to a 5-
a fish egg should somehow survive the year. 6-hour storm event. The storm
hose and sluice, the chan for being ‘ exemption will be allowed provided
buried in the gravel at the right depth . that (1) the settling ponds are designed.
and in the correct gravel composition constructed, and maintained to contain
necessary for incubation are . the volume of process water generated
nonexistent. “The Atlas to the Catalog of during four hours of normal operation
Waters Important for Spawning. Rearing plus the drainage water resulting from a
or Migration of Anadromous Fish” lists 5-year. 6-hour storm event. (2) the
the streams in the State which require operator takes all reasonable steps
a Habitat permit from the Alaska possible to maintain treatment of the
Department of Fish and Game. This wastewater and minimize overflow from
catalog is quite extensive but is the settling ponds, (3) the permittee
available for viewing at many agencies must be in compliance with the BMPs
including Alaska Department of Fish In Part Ifl.A. of the proposed permit.
and Genie. U.S. Fish and Wildlife and (4) the operator complies with all
Service, the National Marine Fisheries the notification requirements for
Service and the Anchorage Operations . bypasses and upsets as established in
Office of EPA. . Parts IILG. and H. of the proposed
-------
r Auzad Rer 1. VoL . . 10 F P Iday, Jaouasy 14. 1 4 I Noti s
wtll be vemdby th. .iuvel
pemiit.TheR4 sanyI&i n t.
on tas nàud p i i t -..: -.
miti don — = D y In inàa
the odsd n ternuthw - -
envizoninentafly t . .uptub e._
X. State Certi/i t t
Sectian 301th)(111 MthaA i
requires that an NPDES permit ni m
conditions which ensure complianan
with applicable State water qanftty
dards The II saiu,nt
for t nr ity
est itid 4 poi t to WQS I
federal standards. raspectii e1y. Section
401 requires t ast Statescertrfy that
Federeflylasued pumti nrein
compli . -with Stat. jaw. No 1s
can be iasned liI the requiremonts of
Section 401 are satisfied.
discharging to waters (inland waters) of
the Sta1aof I ‘A r’i on asg
Slate officia reqinw end pneid.
appropii s ctifi ian to the.. draft
permits y uPu.ii1 ( 10 40 0R 124.53.
fl Ref ere .s
A . W and 8. Cadres. 1404.
Prr ucy
and D-’—- F
With & uA Via “ m,h
Rosdwq
DTqarm asan4 Pohlic
P. diH . - -
Griffith. j.t andEA. Andrewe. IB8L “ .-‘
of.. anafl .u n dredge an Sebas sad
CLAv LL In Idaho p(I .umS .
Werth A 1 j ., . J of Fisheries
Mani en .t 1Z1-2&
Hanler.T.5.. W..L Sase.c e.d C.L. .i.
1988. Iznpsczi of suction - ¾’u1
-
l lt on Ithnia.
Caof. Cnep. F . Rn. U... U—i--’
sat.
. Cnep.A nt No. 14—1I. S—iS4?.
Work darNo. 2. U5ps &
Harvey. 2.C 1988. cti of . - -
dredging on ab and Ins’ atas In two
Ca North American
Journal dF .. .k L. M - 4O1-
Huber,C .d 0. —iIrut 1912. r
Keasi P’ 288i-140t 12.5. F,x
Servica. Qt ach onal Fore , A laska
legion. 74p s•
M an.&u .n. & sad S.E. Isan.
Sucbon dmdg. l4 mining in the
inotherlodeiegmnofco l ifon u la.
CaM eta Dep.awant of F’iSb end Came.
P IIlj 5u.. . 1I 5dt .
Ad ,owh Report 63—t.•
_____asa Noizhsri ’CaliArni .
SImm. iilwth Amar rn.I of
Fiaheria. Miiui .nant Lt 24s-Z52.
Thomas. V.G. 1355. Experimentally
detarminad bnpacti of a small, suction
geM dredgeon. Mootsas ia wz. . NOrth
jesmal Fisheries Man
5I 8 8-418.
U.S. A yCrpsoiEngiamarL 1$ . W
s1ida. CaL 4n U.S Ara yC psd
V g n er,. Aibuqearqu. stncz. P.O.
Box a.S1O.AThcquerqua. New Me,uco
37 103.’
U.S. E , m entnt Protection Agency. 1551.
egebtozy suit , w ..Uulfluig sma ll
-dal sad vecratinl
__d US. £aefron
Protec Ay.Q ofSalld W .
2100 Q ned Om’ Qy.tal Stet . -
Crystal City. Virginis 2Dna ‘A
r. .- . Na. dI-CB-006L WA. 0. SAIC
Project No. 1-553-03-830-Ca 73 prgeL
U.S. Eovi,nnmentn l Protection Agency. 1988.
Development Deca
Limitations Guidelines and New Saute
P .. 1.. . ca S darth for the the
Mining and PoInt S
Category-Gold Fismr Mining
-7 . U Eeru al
Pmte aA ncy. O dW
Timr1i Lgy Olmiren. Washington. DC
2O460 A44W1-88-00a.
_______ Finding ofP1o
Teal latarassad goeesnmnss ngancans.
public gro up., and Aadi e 1LMtI a - -
In a..idanas with the £nvüe &
Prot ’an A y EPM precadsgwe r
complying with the N 1
Envigoamental Psbcy Act (NEPAl. 40
OR p a .t8 . ub i ..itF . Ahia
completed an envitonmental roview of
tire following geo 4 iosu — -- -
of a Ceasref Nil Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NP1 S)
Permit Na. AK—G—37—0000 _____
Necer Mme
The prop d action is Lenianne da
Ceonel NPD Permit wrming both
existing and new ullitien in
Alaska wbith mine end p . . using
gravity separation ehoda. goLd plan. .
ores. Tb. p ., .ii. _ .d effluent lisustetions.
monitoring provisions. and other
can fitâmae are spedfled in the draft
GeneraL t irt ,u.iuit . The Fern Sh
a.. . . .enyiag the draft permit.
desaibes the lassie farther. -. -
requirements. The proposed General
NPDES Permit would taplace the
existing indijidus) Pwut permits.
or iotital areenonueni (EArof
this proposed action ins been
completed (enclosed). Based en the EA.
and in atmordance with the guidelines
for dulirmintng din significance of
proposed federal actions (40 C7R
1508.27) and EPA aiterma h iaatiatu3g
an environmental impact statement
(EIS) (40 CP’R 6.605). EPA has
concluded that the prnp’ 4 Canazul
NPDES pernill willnot result aa
significant eLisct on the human
onviroamenL Tb. propricad C221 will
not sgrif .r ntly affect land use pazzams
or population, wetlands or floodplazas.
thrantened or endangered species.
farmlands. erok€ caily &nl areas.
histonc rnou.rcat. are quality. water
quality, noise levels. lab and wddLile
resources. nor will A Z can fAct with Local.
regional. or slate land tere plans or
policies. The prnpnud permit conforms
with .11 applicable lederal statutes and
o iicajiive orders.
The proposed General P tit
includes the same tedasolegy.based
permit limita.a d -c1ii.d by r dat.
(40 R part 440. subpart ML an the -
urdi id nd anrandy do. Tb.
recircalstson of prc . . . w w 23 -
required and the leshle iile -‘
concentration of theallosrebl. discharge
(i.e. awa’a as1 in lend 100.2
mill’ per lit Water qerlily-bered
limits are the irichided In the pro . d
The wupos.d permit
addition to emsve ianal open-cut
planer m ining operations. pIner mining
operations atilianeg b theollc methods
to remove ovesherden, anction
dredges. The prupnasd permit limits for
the hythvulic oisabndan remavel
opam1 a mu l an the stat.
and beat punfesnorul
judgn and are tin. e an th. limits
for the e onol operations. The
limits for the s 1i’ dradgeoperations
would he bared on best puofessional
judgu i —t . . .. ..
The proposed General Permit worild
reduan the yearly administrative burden
of EPA aw . .1ed with the prmcseing ‘of
numerous individual permits. Because
the proposed General Permit and
individual permits Include essentially
the seine inquiremuts. the primer,
mpactrelet.dtopeinuttypeis
expected to be edminististhe. No
negative impacts to EPA. other egencres
or operators are expected.
Minshall. G.W.. D.A. Mdmws and C l
Manual-Falar. 1983. Application of -.
island Ucth . ..- , to itr . . .
ineaoinvertdierna oneleniratte. o(’th.
TOtog lieer. Idala la .R. laraesandG.
W. Llu,.IuiI i ,uu
Application and tasting aigeasral
ecological theory. Plenum Press. New
‘ro th.-
& .zun4. P.O. ‘1408 Effects of elevated
se Zu,..t leash 8am placarinmirrgon
survival and behavior of Immature Arctic.
grayting. Master’s thesis. University of
- Alaska. Fairbank.,, Rink.. USA. 93
Soarer. WLand TJ .&1 —I.r 1B . E ctsof
as ! remthnc
“- aind a Itar .eicb pte eu.
-------
______
The proposed General NPDES Permit
may contribute to an Improvement in
environmental conditions because it
would reduce the permitting
administrative workload thus making
available limited time that could be
used for higher priority activities, such
as permit compliance and inspections.
The inclusion of suction dredge
operations in the General Permit will
improve the monitoring and compliance
of these operations.
Under the proposed action, the new
source placer mining proposals
requesting coverage under the General
Permit would continue to be subject to
individual NEPA reviews. This will
enable EPA to evaluate the site-specific
and cumulative impacts associated with
the individual projects. Where an LA
condudes that significant impacts are
not anticipated, a Finding of No
Significant Impact would be issued and
the new source project would be granted
coverage under the General Permit. If
EPA determines that significant impacts
from a proposed new source project may
occur, an ES would be prepared prior
to EPA ’s f l permit decision.
Therefore the site-specific impacts of
those projects would continue to be
evaluated and considered prior to the
permit actions. An individual permit
may also be required by EPA in lieu of
co. ra under the General Permit.
For the above reasons EPA has
determined that an ES will not be
prepared for the proposed action.
Comments pertaining to this Finding
of No ’Signiflcant Impact may be
subininedto: Rick Seaborne.
Eoviroorrrental Protection Agency.
Envirenmenral Review Section, 1200
Sixth Avenue, WD-126, Seattle. WA
981 1 11.
l Sadministiative action will be taken
fair at 3odays after the release of
this Finding of No Significant Impact.
EPA will fully consider all comments
t f taking final action.
fi. firalley. -
WoforDivjs,on.
To Discharge Under the
pL L U Pollutant Discharge
rl - System for Alaskan Placer
(Ganend ftrmil No.: AK-G-37.0000j
S cuaspliance with the provisions of
the Cenu Water Act (CWAJ, 33 U.S.C.
1 3 at q.. as amended by the Water
Qaalkry Ad of 1987. Public Law 100-4.
the “‘AsI”. mmsers and operators of
ciilBiias u ged in the processing of
authorized to discharge
tu ” dtheUnited States, in
with emuent limitation.
monitoring requirements. and other
conditions set forth herein.
A COPY OF ThIS GENERAL PERMIT
MUST BE KEPT AT TNE SrrE WjIERE
DISCHARGES OCXUR.
This permit shall become effective 30
days after flnal publication. This permit
and the authorization to discharge shall
expirq 5 years after the effectiya date of
the permit: Director, Water Division.
Region 10. U.S. Environzn ntal
Protection Agency.
Table ef Contents - - -
Cover Page
I. Coverage under this permit
A. Coverage and Eligibility
8. Types of Placer Mine Operations
Covered
C. Limitations on Coverage
D. Prohibitions .
F. Requiring an Individual Permit -
F. Notification Requirements
C. Permit Expiration -
II. Emuent Limitations
A Mechanical Operation (Traditional
Sluicing)
B Hydraulic Removal of Overburden
C. Suction Dredging
D. Monitoring Requirements
UI. Management practices
A. Mechanicel Operations and HydrauLic
Removal of Overburden
B. Suction Dredges . . - ,
C. Other Requirements. •.. .. -
D. Storm Exemption
IV Monitoring and reporting requirements
A. Representative Sampling
8. Reporting of Monitoring Results
C. Monitoring Procedures
D Additional Monitoring by the Permittee
E Record, Contents -
F Retention of Records
C. Notice of Noncompliance Reporting
H. Other Noncompliance Reporting
I. Inspection and Entry
V. Compliance responsibilities
A. Duty to Comply
B. Penaltie, for Violations of Permit
conditions
C Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a
Defense
D. Duty to Mitigate
F. Proper Operation and Maintenance
F. Removed Substances
C. Bypass of Treatment FacilIties
H. Upset Conditioni
L Toxic Pollutants
VI. GeneraJ requirements -
A. Changes in Discharge of Toxic
Substances
B. Planned Changes
C. Anticipated Noncompliance
D Permit Actions
E. Duty to Reepply
F. Duty to Provide Information
C. Other Information
H. Signatory Requirements
L Availability of Reports
J. Oil and Hazardous Substance LiabIlity
K. Property Rights
I.. Severability
M. State Laws
VII. Reopener clause
VIII. Dflnltlona
2511
I X. Special co;dition ,. ...Efnuent limit, below
detection levels
A. Reporting Levels
B Reporting Details
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Appendix A
1. Cove rage Under This Permit
A. Coverage and Eligibility
1. Existing Facilities: Existing
facilities (those facilities having
individual NPDES permits) are
authorized under the terms and
conditions of this permit upon the
submittal of a Notice of Intent (NO!) to
gain coverage under this permit.
Coverage will be granted according to
Permit Part E.4. . -
2. Pending Applications: Upon
submittal of an NO! all facilities which
have submitted applications in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(a) are
authorized under the terms and
conditions of this permit. Coverage will
be granted according to Permit Part E.4.
3. New Facilities; New facilities that
are determined to be new sources under
the CWA will be required to have an
Environmental Assessment (LA)
completed pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A
finding of no significant impact (FNSI)
by EPA is necessary prior to receiving
coverage under this permit. If there will
be a significant impact, the facility will
be required to submit, to EPA, an
Environmental Impact Statement (ES).
Facilities determined to be new
discharger’s will be covered by the terms
and conditions of this permit if they
meet all the necessary requirements of
the coverage.
4. Expanding Facilities: Facilities that
contemplate expanding shall submit a
new NO! that describes the new
discharge. The old permit will be
terminated and a new permit issued in
its place if the facility meets all the
necessary requirements of the coverage.
B. Types of Placer’ Mine Operations
Covered
1. Facilities tha(mme and process
gold placer ores using gravity separation
methods to recover the gold metal
contained in the ore.
a. Open’cut gold placer muies except
those open-cut mines that mine less
than 1.500 cubic yards of placer ore per
mining season.
b Mechanical dredge gold placer’
mines (not suction dredges) except
those dredges that remove less than
50.000 cubic yards of placer ore per
mining season.
2. Suction dredges with intake hoses
‘of greater than 4 inches.
Federal_Register I Vol. 59, No. 10 / Friday. January 14. 1994 / Notices
-------
3. Operations utilizing hYdF .U1iC
removal of overburden. - : . . .
C Limitations on Coverage ,‘ “ ‘
Many streams and stream read s in
Alaska have been designated as p s of
the federal wild and scenic rivers
system or as Coos mioe S tam Uart
(CSLJs) by the fedaral government.
Permittees should c nt.z .t the disti-ict
offices of the damlq xs that
administer the d gi ratvJ ama ‘
additional imt , ii that may apply to
operating within the ama. ny
in Ala a wham pla iii jng 9
have i tbe g ti ’d by M a
• Department of Pi and Game A1 C 1
• asreganA G1tp. 1 t
with additional restrictions. The Axles
to the Catalog al W l p il t for
Spownmg. Reaming er of
Anadromcam F h ’ 1 s d streams in
the &ate iwbãdt iiiee1 iiat
permit.
D. ProbThitions .
oin the allowing
autherized under • - perm1t Merairy
amalgamation. cy%i 4 .ThI n. fieth
floatatias. heap end vat Isw 4 lI.m .
E. Requiring an Thdividual Permit
1.. The Regional Arhethiatzatea nay
re nre any p ea h iswl by this
p tthApplyfli d. .t4niuan. • •1 - i
individual National Pn1In fli
E 11 minathm Systam NPDES p- mit
when:
a .llagletheth argeerth
cumuJad .re - - 1 ——r of clia is/am
i u i n ceatmibator dpoLbztiraz
b. The discharger is not in â mii .
with d i. te:ius and conditions of the
general pemnt
cAchangehestxzumdiuthe
availability ef demonstrated tethnology
or prauiont Ic , d i. control or
ofpolhitanteepp&aM .so the point
d. Elfl”nt liIlihiiM g piUna,
subsequently promulgated for the point
sources covered by the general permit;
a A Water Quality Management plan
containing requbements eppliceble to
such point ivwwS is appsoved or i
£ An Individual Control Strategy tTCS
is required iandersection 104(L) of the
Act
2. The Regional Administrator will
notify the operator in writing thaia
permit application is requited. Tlan
operator fails to submit in a timely
manner an individual NPDES permit
application as required. then the
applicability of this general permit In
the individual NPDES permiuee is
automatically terminated at the end of
- the day eed appl3cation
submittal.
3. Any nerea’opeiaier authorized
bythis iu tnqrequ tobe
excluded from the coverage of This
pennit by app1 ing Icr en individual
permit. The owiasr or operator shall
submit an individual applicatioia (Farm
I and Fount 2C r ZD) with ieamans
suppoiting the request to the Regional
Administrattiwno later then 90 days
after the effective date of dmpermit.
4. When an individual NPDES permit
is issued to an owner or operator
otherwise covered by this permit. the
applicability of this pennit to the
facility is autornailcaflyterminnied on
the effective date of the individual
permit. -
5. When an individual NPDES peisnit
is denied to en owner’ moporator
otherwise couered to this permit, the
permittee is automat icelly temetated
under this permit on the date of such
denial, unless otherwise spealled by
the Reg nnaI Mrninisuazor. A new
facility can receive coverage under this
general permit by submitting . idOL See
Permit Part !.A.3. he dataila.
9. A sowce eraduded firm a general
permit solely because it already has en
individual permit may that the
individual permit be revoked and that it
be covered by the g ni v l p r t Upon
revocation of the individual permit, the
general permit shall apply to (be soorce.
F. Noii , ni Requirenierits
2. Owners or operatorsoflaali*iea
authorized by this permit shall submit
a NOT to be covered by this permit . The
information required for a complete NOI
is in appendix A ofthis permit.
Notification must be made:
a. Within 90 days ailasuanca of this
permit: or
b. By January 1 of the yearof
discharge from a new facility era
facility established since 1968 ttmt has
not previously been by a
permit; or
c. Ninety (90) days pnor to the
expiration of an existing individual
permit. Authorization to discharge
requires wriflea noti lion firm
that coverage has been granted and that
a specific permit number has been
assigned to the operation.
2. Thq NO! shall be signed by the
owner or other signatory authority in
accordance with Part VLH. tSlgn.’nry
Requirements), and a copy shall be
retained on site in acoordairce with Part
IV.F. (Retenthre of Racotthj alibis
permit. The address for NOT submission
to EPA is: United States Enviruinmatital
Protection Agency. Region 10.1200
Sixth Avenue, WD—134. Seattle.
Washington 98101.
3.AcopYo(theNOTrn m ms o b es,
tothereg iona].officaofthe,Ma
Department of Environmental
- Conservation 1ADE that has
jurisdiction over the mine. ‘The
addresses are: • -
Alaska Depmbneat olEavuenaieaial
Conservatmoo, 410 Willoughby. Suite 305.
Juneau. Alaska 99801
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation. Northern Regional Office,
610 University Avenue. Fanbanks. Alaska
ogyog
Alaska Deparuneut ofF wkouimenial
C’ iI Regiesal iz.
01 C zet, Suite 1 CCh a .
AIa a995(
4. A copy of ihegeneral permit will
be sent to the perininee when it is
determined that the facility can be
granted coverage under this general
permit. If it is determined that coverege
cannot be gianted under this permit, the
applicant will be informed of this in
writing.
C. Permit Ezpuazion
Coverage under this permit will
expire five (5) years from the data of
issuance. For fwilities submhtiog a new
NO! 90 days prior to expiration of this
general permit, the conditions of the
expired permit continue in force unti’
the effective data of a new permit.
II. Efj7uent Umitat ion s
A. Mechanical Operation ITn idit i ona]
S ...
During the term of this permit, no
wastewater discharges are authorized
except as specillad below.
)rE!ifueni Limitations,
a. The volume of wastewater wh
may be disthaiged shait - ‘ exceed the
volume olinfiMmtien, drainege and
mine drainage Wat. ’Ll which is in er ass
of the eaake.45p water required far
operation of the beOel lri2aw process.
b. The wastewater discharged shall
not exceed the followinç
ElSuest diar cteruttc
IT i . ’
Settleatle South .
Tu rtaSly . . ..._..,..
-.
Arsenic, Total Reeav.
erabte.
0.2 mVL.
5 NTUs move netural
a
(1) 0.18 “WL
(2) Natural back-
2. Efllueni discharges are prohibited
during periods when new water is
allowed to enter the plant site.
Additionally, there shall be no
discharge as a result of the intake of new
water.
2 12 .. - - yLi2 l! ct.. 1 Yni. 59. No. O’I Friday. J*i i ry i4lSD4YNotlccn -
-------
____ Federal Register! VoL 59. No. 10/ Friday. January 1 1.994 1 Notices
B. Hydraulic Removal of Overburden
During the term of this permit, no
raslewater discharges are authorized
except as specified below.
1. Effluent Imitations. a. The volume
of wastewater which may be discharged
shall not exceed the volume of
infiltration, drainage and mine drainage
waters which is in excess of the make-
up water required for operation of the
hydraulicking process.
b. The wastewatar discharged shall
not exceed the following:
Effluent cl esteretic t Xi”
Seitleable Sdi — 02 mVL
Turbøity . 5 NTU above naflzal
to-
b Visual lnsp ction. The Permittee
shall institute a comprehensive visual
inspection program to fecilitate proper
operation and maintenance of the
recycle system and the wastewater
treatment system. The Permittee shall
conducran inspection of the site once
per day dunng the mining season. The
Permittee shall maintain records of all
information resulting from any visual
inspections. These records shall
include, but are not limited to. en
evaluation of the condition of all water
control devices such as diversion
structures and berets and all solids
retention structures such as berrns.
dikes, pond structures, and dam c - The
records shall also include an assessment
of the presence of sediment buildup
within the settling ponds. The Perinittee
shall examine all ponds for the
occurrence of short circuiting.
c. Turbidity Monitoring. The
Permittee shall monitor the turbidity
values of the effluent stream and the
background turbidity values of the
receiving stream then compare the Iwo
samples. The sample results shall be
reported on the Annual Discharge
Monitoring Report (DMR). The
Permittee shall take one sample at a
.point that is representative of the
discharge prior to entering the receiving
stream. The Permittee shall take another
sample above the discharge point at a
location that Is considered to be the
Effluent tharactemllc
Arsen . Total Recov- (I) 0.18 io/L
erable. (2) nah aJ badc
• See Pa,t 11.0.4. deta s,
2. Effluent discharges are prohibited
durin poriods when new watè is
allowed to enter the plant site.
Additionally, there shall be no
discharge as a result of the intake of new
water.
C. Suction Dredging
1. At any point ji the receiving stream
500 feet downstream of the dredges
discharge point. the ina iimum
allowable increase in turbidity over the
“natural” background of the receiving
stream as defined in permit port Vi.
Both samples shall be taken within a
reasonable time frame. Monitoring shall
be conducted in accordance with - - .
aumpted analyticel procedures. See
anaclunent I for sampling protocoL
d. Arsenic Monitoring. Arsenic
samples shall be representative of the
discha e and shall be taken at a point
prior to entering the receiving stream.
Arsenic samples taken to determine
“natural” background shall be
reprsentative of the receiving water
upstream from any man-made
disturbances. Monitoring shall be
conducted in accordance with accepted
analytical procedures. The Perinittee
shall report the sample results on the
Annual DMR. See attachment 2 foz
sampling protocol. . -
The effluent limitation For total
recoverable arsenic is not quantifiable
using the EPA approved analytical
method, EPA method 206.2. Thus. A
has set forth reporting thresholds to
measure the highest acceptable
quantification level fez this parameter.
This reporting threshold does not
authorize the discharge of this
parameter in excess of the effluent
limitation. For more information, see
special conditions in Part DC. of this
permit.
a. Settleable Solids Monitoring.
Set leable solids samples shall be
natural receiving stream turbidity while
operating is, 5 NTUs.
2. A visual Increase In turbidity (any
cloudiness or muddiness) 500 feet
downstream of the suction dredge
— during operations would be considered
a violation of the $ NTU limit.
3. if noth able turbidity does oonar
500 feet downstream of the work site.
operation of the suction dredge must
decrease or cease so that a violation as
defined above does not exist.
D. Monitoring Requirements
1. Mechanical Operations and
Hydraulic Removal of Overburden. a.
During the period h ginning on the
effective date of this permit and lasting
until the expiration data, the following
monitoring shall be condure iivi
representative of the discharge and shall
be taken at a point prior to entering the
receiving stream. Monitoring shall be
conducted in accordance with accepted
analytical procedures (Standard
Methods, 18th Edition, 1985). The
Permittee shall report the sample results
en the Annual DMR. See attachment 3
for sampling and analysis protocol.
I. Flow Monitoring. Effluent flow
shall be measured at the discharge prior
to entering the receiving water. Effluent
flow shall be measured at least once per
day. for continuous discharges, or once
during each discharge event If
discharges are intermittent. The flow
shall be measured In gallons per minute
(gpm). The flow measurements, the
number of discharge events, and the
duration of each discharge event shall
be reported in the Annual DMR for each
day of the enming season.. -
2. Suction Dredges. a. Suction Dredge
operations shall visually monitor for
turbidity- as described in Part IIC. once
per day of operation. The Permittee
shall maintain records of all information
resylfing from any visual inspections.
b. The Permittee will report the
period of suction dredging on the DMR.
Visual violation orxuriences will also be
reported on the DMR along with the
measures taken tocoruply with the
provisions of Permit Part ll.C.3.
2513
Elfkaet* c’,er
oca
Uop , 1 ft q j y
Sai aie t
Settleable Solids (mVL) .._....
Turbidity (NTU) ..........
Arsenic (pgIL) Teat reooverable ...
Flow (gpm) ..........._..........._
Effluent .... ........... ...__
Effluent natural badcground ..._....
Effluent natural badcgrowid ...
Et ient ....... .. - -
Once pee day each day of dii-
charge.
Once per season .L - ..._
Once per saasen ._
(‘ )
Grab.
Grab.
Gmb. , -
Instantaneoso
Only when choosing Option (2).
Analyzed by EPA Method 2062 with a detection r. et of I i iolL,
See Part ILD.1J. toe details,
I
I
I
I
-------
)2514
Federal Register I VoL 59, Na 10 J Fziday, Tanuáiy 14’ 19ö4 1’ Notices
• - W. Management Practices -
• A.MechanicalOperatfons and
Hydraulic Removal of Overburden,
i.The flow of surface waters (i.e..
creek, river, or stream) into the plant
site shall be interrupted and these . -
waters diverted around and away to
prevent incursion into the plant site.
2. Berins, induding any pond walls.
dikes, low dams. and similar water
retention structures shall be constructed
in a manner such that they are
reasonably expected to reject the
passage of water.
3. Measures shall be taken to assure
that pollutant materials removed from
the process water and wastewater
streams will be retained in storage areas
and not discharged or released to the
waters of the United States. - -.
4. The amount of new water allowed
to enter the plant site for use in material
processing shall be limited to the
minimum amount required as makeup
water for processing operations.
5. All water control devices such as
diversion structures and berms and all
solids retention structures such as
berins, dikes, pond structures, and dams
shall be maintained to continue their
• effectiveness and to protect from failure.
& The operator shall take whatever
ressonable steps are appropriate to
amuis that, after the mining season, all
mine areas. induding ponds. are in a ,
condition which will not cause
- additional degradation to the receiving
waters over those resulting from natural
causes.
B. Suction Dredges
1. Dredging in waters of the United
- Sates is permitted only within the
tive stream channeL
2. Wherever practicable, the dredge
shall beset to discharge into a quiet
pool, where settling of dredge spoils can
occur more rapidly.
3. Care shall be taken by the operator
during refueling of the dredge to prevent
spillage into public waters or to
groundwater.
4. Dredging is not permitted during
the periods that fish e s could be in the
gravel at the dredge site and harassment
of fl l in the stream Is prohibited. “The
Atlas to the Catalog of Waters Important
for Spawning. Rearing or Migration of
Anadromous Fish” lists the streams in
the State which require a Habitat permit
from the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game.
C. Other Requirements—Mechanical
Operations and Hydraulic Removal of
Overburden
The operator shall maintain fuel
handling and storage facilities in a
m n er which will prevent the
discharge of fuel oil into the receiving
Waters or on the adloining shoreline. A
Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure Plan (SPCC Plan) shall
be prepared and updated as necessary in
accordance with provisions of 40 (YR
part 112 for facilities storing 660 gallons
in a single container above ground.
1,320 gallons in the aggregate above
ground. or 42.000 gallons below ground.
The permittee shall indicate on the
DMR if an SPCC Plan is necessary and
In place at the site and if changes were
made to the Plan over the previous year.
D. Storm Exemptloa
The perinittee may qualify for a storm
exemption from the technology-based
effluent limitations in Part ILA.L b. of
- this NPDES general permit if the - - -
following conditions are met:
1. The treatment system is designed.
constructed and maintained to contain
the maximum volume of untreated
process wastewater which would be
discharged, stored, contained and used
or recycled by the beneliciation process
into the treatment system during a 4-
hour operating period without an
increase in volume from precipitation or
infiltration, plus the maximum volume
of water runoff (drainage waters)
resulting from a 5-year. 6-hour
precipitation event. In computing the
maximum volume of water which
would result from a 5-year. 6-hour
precipitation event, the operator must
include the volume which should result
from the plant site contributing runoff to
the individual treatment facility.
2. The operator takes all reasonable
steps to maintain treatment of the
wastewater and minimize the amount of
overflow.
3. The source is in compliance with
the Best Management Practices in Part
lILA. of this permit. . -
4. The operator complies with the
notification requirements of Parts IV.G.
and H. of this permit.
IV. Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
A. Representative Sampling
All samples for monitoring purposes
shall be representative of the monitored
activity. 40 CFR 122.41 Ii). To determine
compliance with permit effluent
limitations. “grab” samples shall be
taken as established under Part fl.D. of
this permit. Specifically, effluent
samples for sattleable solids, turbidity.
and arsenic shall be collected from the
settling pond or other treatment systems
outlet prior to discharge to the receiving
stream. Additionally, turbidity samples
shall also be taken above the discharge
point at a location that is represents
of the receiving stream. Samples for
arsenic and turbidity monitoring must
be taken during sluicing at a time when
the operation has reached equilibrium.
For example. samples should be taken
when sluice paydirt loading and -
effluent discharge are constant.
B. Reporting of Monitoring Results
Monitoring results shall be -
summarized each month and reported
on EPA Form 3320-1 (DMR}. The DMR
shall be submitted to the Envuonmental
Protection Agency. Region 10, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Enforcement Section -
WD— 135, Seattle, Washington 98101—
3188, no later than November 30 each
year.
If there is no mining activity during
the year or no wastewater discharge to
a receiving stream, the permlttee shall
notify EPA of these facts no later than
November 30 of each year.
The DMR shall also be sent to the
regional office of ADEC that has
jurisdiction over the mine. The
addresses can be found in permit part
LE.3. -
C Monitoring Procedures
Monitoring must be conducted
according to test procedures approv
under 40 (YR part 136. unless other..
procedures have been specified in this
permit.
D. Additional Monitoring by the
Permittee
If the permittee monitors any
pollutant more frequently than required
bVhls permit. using test procedures
4proved under 40 (YR part 136 or as
specified in this permit. the results of
this monitoring shall be included in the
calculation and reporting of the data
submitted in the DMR. Such increased
frequency shall also be indicated.
E. Records Contents. ‘ .. -
Records of monitoring information
shall indude:
1. The date, exact place. and time of
sampling or measurements;
2. The individual(s) who performed the
sampling or measurements:
3. The date(s) analyses were performed;
4. The individual(s) who performed the
analyses;
5. The analytical techniques or methods
used: and
6, The results of such analyses.
F. Retention of Records
The permittee shall retain recorch
all monitoring information. including
all calibration and maintenance records
and all original strip chart recordings for
continuous monitoring instrumentation.
-------
r ____
Federal Rsgica r I VoL 59. No. 10 / Friday. January 14. 1.994-1 Notices
I
copies of all reports required by this
permit, and records of all data uted to,
complete the application for this permit.
for a period of at least three years from
the date of the sample, measurement.
report or applicntiori. This period may
be extended by request of the Director
or ADEC at any time. Data collected on-
site. copies of DMRs. and a copy of this
NPDES permit must be maintained on-
site during the duration of activity at the
permitted locetion.
C. Notice of Noncompliance Reporting
1. Any noncompliance which may
endanger health or the environment
shall be reported as soon as the
permute. becomes aware of the
circumstance. A wr tten submission
shall also be provided in the shortest
reasonable period of time after the
permittee becomes aware of the
occurrence.
2. The following occurrences of
noncompliance shall also be reported in
writing in the shortest reasonable period
of time after the pernuttee becomes
aware of the drcumstancas
a. Any unanticipated bypass which
exceeds any effluent limitation in the
permit (sea Pert V.G.. Bypass of
Treatment Facilities.); or
b. Any upset which exceeds any
effluent limitation in the permit (see
Part V.H.. Upset Conditions.).
c. Any violation of the effluent
limitation.s in Permit Parts ILA. and fl.B.
3 The written submission shall
I
conieni -
a A desauption of the noncompliance
and its cause:
b The period of noncompliance.
including exact dates and timam
c. The estimated tune noncompliance
is expected to continue if it has not been
corrected; and
d. Steps taken or planned to reduce.
eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of
the noncompliance.
4. The Director may waive the written
repoll on a case.by-cas. basis lEan oral
report has been received within 24
hours by the Water Compliance Section
in Seattle. Washington. by phone. (206)
553—1213.
S. Reports shell be submitted to thern
addresses in Part IV.B.. Reporting of
Mon itonng Results.
H. Other Noncompliance Reporting
Instances of noncompliance not
required to be reported in PIG. above
shall be . . .,.oriadatthetimethat
monitoring reports for Part IV.L are
submitted. The reports shall contain the
information listed in Paul IV.C.3.
I. Inspection and Entry
The permittee shall allow the
Director. ADEC. or an authorized
representative (induding an authonred
contractor acting as a representative of
the Administrator), upon the,
presentation of credentials and other
documents as may be required by law.
to:
1. Enter upon the penniltee’s
premises where a regulated cility or
activity is located orcosuducted. or
where records must be kept under the
conditions of this permits
2. Have ss to and copy. at
reasonable times, any records that must
be kept under the conditions of this
permit;
3. Inspect at reasonable times any
facilities, equipment (indriding
monitoring and control equipment).
practices. Cr operations regulated or
required under this permit; and.
4. Sample or monitor at reasonable
times, for the purpos. of assuring permit
compliance or as otherwis, authorized
by the Act. any substances or -
parameters at any tocetlon. . ‘-
V. Compliance Resns 1,i1ities
A. Duty to Comply -
The permitlee must comply with all
conditions of this periniL Any permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation
of the Act and is grounds for
ehforcement action: for permit
termination, revocation sad
or modification; or for denial of a permit
renewal application. The permittee shall
give advance notice to the Director and
ADEC of any planned changes in the
permitted facility or activity which may
result in noncompliance with pernut
requ ijements.
B. Penalties for Violations of Permit
Conditions .
r. d imstrativ Penalty. The Ad
provides that any person who violates.
permit condition implementing sections
301, 302, 306. 307.308.318. or 405 of
theActshailbesubjecttoan
administrative penalty. not to exceed
810.000 per day for each violation..
2. Civil Penalty. The Act provides that
any person who violates a permit
condition implementing mctiona 301.
302. 306, 307. 308, 318, or 405 of tile
Act shall be sublect to a avil penalty.
not to exceed 825.000 per day for each
violation.
3. Criminal Penalties: a. Negligent
Violations. The Act provides that any
person who negligently yi ii a
permit condition implementing sections
301 • 302.306.307. 308.318, or 405 of
the Act shall be punished by a fine of
not loss than $2,500 nor rums than
325.000 per day of violation. or by
iftprisonment For not more than 1 year.
or by both.
b. Knowing Violations. The Ad
provides that any person who
knowingly violates a permit condition’
implementing sections 301.302.306.
307, 308. 318. or 405 otthe Act shall be
punished by a floe of not less than
$5,000 nor more than 350.000 par day
of violation. or by imprisonment for not
more than 3 years. or by both.
C. Knowing Endangerment. The Act
provides that any person who
knowingly violates a permit condition
implementing sections 301. 302, 306.
307. 308. 318. or 405 of the Act. and
who knows at that time that he thereby
places another person in imminent
danger of death or serious bodily injury.
shall, upon conviction. be subject to a
fine of not more than $250,000 c c
impri 1 iment of not more than 15
years. or both. A person which is an
organization shall, upon conviction of
violating this subparagraph, be subiect
to a fine of not more than 31.000.000.
ci. False Statements. The Ad provides
that any person who knowingly mak’
any false material statement.
representation. or certification in any
application, record. report. plan. or
.cu l ar document filed or required to be
maintained under this Act or who
knowingly falsifies, tampers with, or
renders Inaccu r ate any monitoring
device or method required to be
maintained under this Act, shall upon
conviction, be punished by • fine of not
more that $10,000. or by imprisonment
for not more then 2 year’s. or by both.
Except as provided in permit
conditions in Pail V.C.. Bypass at
Treatment Facilities and Part V. a.
Upset Conditions, nothing in this permit
shall be construed to relieve the
perrnittee of the civil or cximinal
penalties for noncompliance.
C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not
a Defense
it shall not beadefeese for.
perrnittoe in an enforcement retg that
it would have been necessary to halt or
reduce the permitted activity In urder to
maintain comphanee with the
conditions of this permit. -
D. Duty to Mitigate
The permittee shall take all
reasonable steps to or
any discharge in violation of this permit
which has a reasonable lilre1ibo ’ of
adversely affecting htunan health er’ the
environment.
E. Proper Operation and Maint ’ ’
The permittee shall at all times
properly operate and maintain all —
facilities and systems of treatment end
control (and related sppurtei afw l
which are installed or used by the
2515
-------
2316
tL. 1. . a . .
Federal Register / VoL 5 . No. 10 I Friday. January. 14. 1994 1 NotIces
perinittee to achieve compliance with
the conditions of this permit. Proper
operation and maintenance also . . -
includes adequate laboratory controls
and appropriate quality assurance
procedures. This provision requires the
operation of back-up or auxiliary
- facilities or similar systems which are
installed by a perrnittee only when the
operation is necessary to achieve
compliance with the conditions of the
permit.
F. Removed Substances -
Solids, sludges. or other pollutants
removed in the course of treatment or
control of wastewaters shall be disposed
-. of in a manner so as to prevent any
pollutant from such materials from -
entering waters of the United States.
C. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
‘1. Bypass not exceeding limitations.
The permittee may allow any bypass to
occur which does not cause effluent
limitations to be exceeded. but only if
It also is for essential maintenance to
assure efficient operation. These :--‘
bypasses are not subject to the
provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this
section. . -
2 .Notice: . . . .. - -
a. Anticipated bypass. If the permittee
knows in advance of the need for a . - .
bypass. it shall submit prior notice, if -
possible at least 10 days before the date
of the bypass. .
b. Unanticipated bypass. The
permittee shall submit notice of an
unanticipated bypass as required under
Part 111G.. Notice of Noncompliance
Reporting.
3. Prohibition of bypass.
a. Bypass is prohibited and the
_Director or ADEC may take enforcement
action against a permittee for a bypass.
unless: ‘
(1) The bypass was unavoidable to•
prevent loss of life, personal injury, or
severepropertydainages : . •. . ..•
(2) There were no feasible alternatives
to the bypass. such u the use of ‘-.
auxiliary treatment Ibalitles, retention
of untreated wastes, or maintenance
during normal periods of equipment
downtime. This condition Is not
satisfied if adequate back.up equipment
should have been installed in the
exercise of reasonable engineering
judgment to prevent a bypass which
occurred during normal periods of
equipment downtime or preventive
maintenance: and
(3) The permittee submitted notices as
r quired under paragraph 2 of this
section.
b. The Director and ADEC may
approve an anticipated bypass. after
considering its adverse effects, if the
Director and ADEC determine that if
will meet the three conditions listed
above in paragraph 3.a. of this section.
H. Upset Conditions
1. Effect of an upset. An upset
constitutes an affirmative defense to an
action brought for noncompliance with
such technology based permit effluent
limitations if the requirements of
paragraph 2 of this section are met. An
administrative review of a claim that
noncompliance was caused by an upset
does not represent final administrative
action for any specific event. A
determination is not final until formal
administrative action is taken for the
specific violation(s).
2. Conditions necessary for a
demonstration of upset. A permittee
who wishes to establish the affirmative
defense of upset shall demonstrate,
through properly signed. . -
contemporaneous operating iogs. or
other relevant evidence that: . -
a. An upset occurred and that the
permittee can identify the cause(s) of
the upset:
b. The permitted facility was at the
time being properly operated:
c. The permittee submitted notice of
‘the upset as required under Part NC..
Notice of Noncompliance Reporting;
and - -
d. The perinittee complied with any
remedial measures required under Part
V.D.. Duty to Mitigate.
3. Burden of proof. In any
enforcement proceeding, the permittee
seeking to esiablish the occurrence of an
upset has the burden of proof.
L Toxic Pollutants
The permittee shall comply with
emuent standards or prohibitions
established under section 307(a) of the
Act for toxic pollutants within the time
provided In the regulations that
establish those standards or
prohibitions, even if the permit has not
yet been modified to incorporate the
requirement.
VI. General Requirements
A. Changes in Discharge of Toxic
Substances
Notification shall be provided to the
Director and ADEC as soon as the
permittee knows of. or has reason to
believe:
1. That any activity has occurred or
will occur which would result in the
dischaige. on a routine or frequent basis.
of any toxic pollutant which is not
limited in the permit. if that discharge
will exceed the highest of the following
‘notification levels”:
a. One hundred micrograms per liter
(100 ugh):
b. Two hundred micrograms per liter
(200 u&gll) for aaolein and acrylonitrilt
five hundred micrograms per liter (500
ighl) for Z.4-dlnitrophenol and for 2-
methyl -4. 6 -dlnitropbenol; and one
milligram per liter (1 mg/I) for
antimony:
c. Five (5) times the maximum
concentration value reported for that
pollutant in the permit application in
accordance with 40 GR 122.21(g)(7); or
d. The level established by the
Director in accordance with 40 CFR
122.44(0. -
2. That any activity has occurred or
will occur which would result in any
discharge, on a non-routine or
infrequent basis, of a toxic pollutant
which is not limited in the permit. if
that discharge will exceed the highest of
the following “notification levels”:
a, Five hundred micrograms per liter
(500
b. One milligram per liter (1 mg/I) for
antimony: £ -
c. Ten (10) times the maximum
concentration value reported for that
pollutant in the permit application in
accordance with 40 FR 122.21(g)(7). or
d. The level established by the
Director in accordance with 40 CFR
122.44(Q. -
B. Planned Changes - -
The permittee shall give notice to the
Director and ADEC as soon as possible
of any planned physical alterations or
additions to the permitted facility.
Notice is required only when:
1. The alteration or addition to a
permitted facility may meet one of the
criteria for determining whether a
facility is a new source as determined in
40 22.29(b); or
The alteration or addition could
significantly change the nature or
Increase the quantity of pollutants
discharged. This notification applies to
pollutants which are subject neither to
effluent limitations in the permit. nor to
notification requirements under part
VLA.1.
C. Anticipated Noncompliance
The permittee shall also give advance
notice to the Director and ADEC of any
planned changes in the permitted
(Ocility or activity which may result in
noncompliance with permit
requirements.
D. Permit Actions -
This permit may be modified, revoked
and reissued, or terminated for cause.
The filing of a request by the permittee
fore permit modification, revocation
and reissuance. or termination, or a
notification of planned changes or
anticipated noncompliance, does not
stay any permit condition.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 10 I Friday. January 14, 1.994 I Notices
2517
E. Duty to Reapply
lithe permittee wishes to Continue an
activity regulated by this permit after
the expiration date of this permit. the
permittee must apply for and obtain a
new permit. The application should be
submitted at least 180 days before the
expiration date of this permit.
F Duty to Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the
Director and ADEC. within a reasonable
time, any information which the
Director or ADEC may request to
determine whether cause exists for
modifying, revoking and reissuing, or
terminating this permit. or to determine
compliance with this permit. The
permittee shall also furnish to the
Director or ADEC. upon request, copies
of records required to be kept by this
permit.
C Other Information
When the permiltee becomes aware
that it failed to submit any relevant facts
in a permit application, or submitted
incorrect information in a permit
application or any report to the Director
or ADEC, it shall promptly submit such
facts or information.
H. Signatory Requirements
All applications, reports or
information submitted to the Director
and ADEC shall be signed and certified.
1. All permit applications shall be
signed as follows:
a. Fo corporation by a responsible
corporate officer.
b For a partnership or sole
proprietorship, by a general partner or
the proprietor, respectively.
c. For a municipality, state, federal, or
other public agency: by either a
principal executive officer or ranking
elected official.
2. All reports required by the permit
and other information requested by the
Director or ADEC shall be signed by a
person described above or by a duly
authorized representative of that person.
A person is a duly authorized
representative only if:
a. The authorization is made in
writing by a person described above and
submitted to the Director and ADEC.
and
b. The authorization specified either
an individual or a position having
responsibility for the overall operation
of the regulated facility or activity, such
as the position of plant manager.
operator of a well or a well field,
superintendent. position of equivalent
responsibility, or an individual or
position having overall responsibility
for environmental matters for the
company. (A duly authorized.
representative may thus be either a
named individual or any individual
occupying a named position.)
3. Changes to authorization, if an
authorization under paragraph IV.H.2. is
no longer accurate because a different
individual or position has responsibility
for the overall operation of the facility,
a new quthorization satisfying the
requirements of paragraph VI.H.2. must
be submitted to the Director and ADEC
prior to or together with any reports,
information, or applications to be signed
by an authorized representative.
4. Certification. Any person signing a
document under this section shall make
the following certification:
I certify under penalty of law that this
document and all attachments were prepared
under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assine
that qualified personnel properly gather and
evaluate the information submitted. Based on
rny inquiry of the person or persons who
manage the system, or those persons directly
responsible for gathering the infomiatica, the
information submitted is. to the best of my
knowledge and belief. uue. accurate, and
complete. t era aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment for knowing vtolation .
1. Availability of Reports . -.
Ezcept for data determined to be
confidential under 40 R part 2, all
reports prepared in accordance with the
terms of this permit shall be available
for public inspection at the offices of the
Director and ADEC. As required by the
Act, permit applications, permits and
effluprit data shall not be considered
confidential.
J. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be
constsued to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve the permittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties to which the permittee is or
may be sublect under section 311 of the
Act.
K. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not
convey any property rights of any sort.
or any exclusive privileges, nor does it
authorize any injury to private property
or any invasion of personal rights, nor
any infringement of federal, state or
local laws or regulations.
L Severability
The provisions of this permit are
severable, and if any provision of this
permit. or the application of any
provision of this permit to any
circumstance, is held invalid, the
application of such provision to other
circumstances, and the remainder of
this permit. shall not be affected
thereby.
M. State Laws
Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve the permittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties established pursuant to any
applicable state law or regulation under
authority preserved by section 510 of
the Act.
N. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements
mi posed on regulated facilities in this
draft general permit under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The in formation
cullection requirements of this permit
have already been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget in
submission made for the NPDES permit
program under the provisions of the
CWA.
VII. Reopener Clause
U effluent limitations or requirements
are established or modified in an
approved State Water Quality
Management Plan or Waste Load
Allocation and if they are more stringent
that those listed in this permit or..control
a pollutant not listed in this permit, this
permit may be reopened to include
those more stringent limits or
requirements.
VIII. Definitions
A. “Bypass” means the intentional
diversion of waste streams around any
portion of a treatment facility.
B.”Drainage Water” means incidental
surface waters from diverse sources
such as rainfall, snow melt or
permafrost melt.
C. A “Grab” sample is a single sample
or measurement taken at a specific time
D. “Infiltration Water” means that
water which permeates through the
earth into the plant site. -
E. “Instantaneous Maximum” means
the maximum value measured at any
time.
F. “Mine Drainage” means any water.
not associated with active sluice water,
that is drained, pumped or siphoned
from a mine.
‘C. “Monitoring Month” means the
period consisting of the calendar weeks
which begin and end in a given calendar
month.
H. “Natural Background” means the
levef upstream from all mining and
other man-made disturbances.
I. “NTU” (Nephelometric Turbidity
Unit) is an expression of the optical
property that causes light to be scattered
and absorbed rather than transmitted in
a straight line through the water.
-------
is”
reI Rs is rI VoL 59. N 101 P ithy, amsaty Z4 I IJ otk . . - - - -•
J. “Ma&e up Wster”w . ther
volume of water needed to replacs
process water lost due to .eaçes
and seepa In order to m ini tn the
quantity ‘7 forihaopenLina of
the banIE ! process.
K. ‘1’he Water an
any creta source such en a nver ,
creek, lake orwell whkh aHhiPrm y
affowed or brought i a the plant site.
L PTan( Site means the area
occupied by the mine, necessary
haulage ways bme the .in. toth.
.ares,th.eseaaedbyth.
wastewater stasag. ha liuies
and the stcr aasea e meteriala
and solido i .d fro the
wastawe deiieg ‘ -
? ,t , WMW ’
such as awn, - - - . ceshe, or
any ethsrwn n. ewh h receevu
wastsws dls ar .
N. “Severe property damage” mmes
substantial physzca damage to property,
damage to the treatment facifitles which
thme b, w hwpmebl.. as’
substan aid p—1 loesel
natural reero re meMy
be expectod to
a bjpaia. dip does
eat meaevw.-—in Ise.w J by
0. t mMg ’
ineffective itfle pousdi doe to
inadequate or insuffloent re etioe
characteristf c i. e r*c ive
deposition, embankment Infiltration!
pe 1 baiair . lick of msintenwics etc.
P. Upmt ’ an exceptIonal
Incident us wfrfth them Is unin n&lonaf
and tenipcrory nonoosnpBame1 with
technotogy4 ased permit . ° “i f
limitations because of factors beyond
the nmnhl . s at g0ftM perm eeu.
An. uQset does nut fnthda -
noncempF . to the e’ c .ea b,
opetathni eil snol. pr Iy di .ágpaj
- treatment facilities.. ‘ ‘ ‘
tr ’ faciIl e hak dp.svasstve
marn*sesecs. orw . 1 w taspreper
operation. -
a ws
beneheisthas pa i I lnibe but net
limited to the water used to the
ore toandth . .i t thebenefidetlon
proceer. eweterusedtnatdtn
classification, and
gravity ssparathmL tulsa &aliagp. and
Mflltnztlca mid thnisagw werer which
coanningle with mine thuinage ci’
wut resulting b the beiwfidatfon
procc . -
Bekiiu tec1win Lamb
:.
1. For prnposao(rapoeting,the
shell isas
thrmhoi aa)uvalant to the
level (MU. The hU . , Is finm4 as the
concentration in a sample equivalent to
tbec ufruGuofth e1swwt -.
&fbvation standaidenaI ead [ a a -
spedfi analytical
that afl the
whasies and p ’ ag ete
have beau lilla . he su , the
p.. lt... 5l
aprivaIas to the c m i elkul aJ the
ML rareeicwhith 4 L ... -.
2. Perth, pai eseefrep. nthigcfl the
DMR. arxslytf& r he should be
led whenever possbte. All - -
analytfonltmluecatoe a ouetha .
shall be reported as the measured value.
When the results be quu.d ed -
values babes the — ‘ “d . Li t1 it
(1 -iglL) sbe beregas mio
valees e thus b . .. .& -
det Ievsk end bela . the .abell
bsmpostedentths .mi2p L.
B. R p i t Ibteib
In the “ t tmmant a—’— ” cC the
DMR. the permittee shall report thus
lowest calibration standard used and the
Mt 1 4 N 3
TtuhWiPjS e mplingP . ” ’
t.Cabwi hesbeltbe . ’. 1 ’ . ’
z. g flw
one mar potypmçykn. or 5Jbea rain .
2 Sample, nIOirbe’OIOIedtD 4ieh s . . .
Celsius (1ced .
4. Seraphs must be an.L dwithin4â
hours of sample collection.
I
Araiea Sam thngPh&
1. G samples .Rbees1
2. Samples shall be collocted In a stenli
3. 3— 1 J beasbat es4 -
-
In et e k ry lo,
analyua as anon en possible.
S. (en must ha {iF d with n uic
ac id pM (e sa±a n .upoo
receipt at the’ P oratory.
O SempIsmuMb. di a4In aihaat1
howa pnorto analysis.
A1Jha ,It
Se !eabIe SeEds SdmpViugPhet rsI
1. GffilTii .mFP .. sh Bbe’ IL.4.
2. Samples shel collected Is
one bIer pol piep lea.cr g tee
• 1. ‘ L-. J- - am b.ceoIsdm4 —=
4sius ( d’l.
.4. Samples ra ba anaL za4 esthe 4&
-
1. FIll an Imboffaine to the titer mai*wffi
• thoroughly uruxed sasapln.
. Settle (cr45 minutes. then gently stIr the
sldee’efth.ceee’wth.rodor lygen t l y
3. sS mastas hager. s record i t t .
volwne 04 mideabl. . or
T.&k1 . per litsa. Dose es esy
Tb. l ar ir
level on the Imhoff eons is 0.1 r aM. Araj
esetleable material below the 0 i ralIT inar
shall be .vcordeduem.
ApruIIIT A—Nuat dI mii
__________ -.
_ . _ n. _ e4
Ad es & P
Address & Phone Nwnhs’$Wtamd
Ope l $ I dfL .. _ i
Address & Phone Number 1—--— -)
Address & P ese Ns( .. )
Fa t i ’Ns -
Facility Locatlo. Tow.)
Latitude and Lo.ijtiido
Town .k ç
Previous M’ue permit number
Recoiving Wet r
Mwc IIIuM . ! uint Fto v
Low hes..Lr. . .... Sow
.T ypedOp.r.iI.e me&econat. Suetwi,
J 04 6 5l 1 r -J
Signature and ea lam
peund part VLH.4. )
A drawthgorsatthoLths -,--
tThVec SI-100 Filed 3-P3- 4 StIS ire)
-------
Federal Register! VoL 59, No. 7/ Tuesday, January ii, 1994 / Notices
1535
nvuonmentafly related data end
aformatlon.
Three topics will be discussed during
the meeting: ____
1. A new EIA Committee proj ct to
devise recommendations that may be
incorporated in Lb. Information
Resources Management (IRM) Strategic
Plan EPA Is developing
2. Previous EPA IRM planning efforts.
3. The status of ut EPA IRM
programs.
Scheduling constraints preclude oral
comments from the public during the
meeting. Written comments can be
subrnrned by mail, and will be
transmitted to Committee members for
consideration.
DATES: The public meeting will be held
on Wednesday. January 19. 1994. from
9 am. to 5 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Written nmments should
besenttoMarkjoyce 1601F.Offlceof
Cooperative Environmental
Management. U.S. EPA. 401 M Street
SW., Washington. DC 20460.
The public meeting will be bald at the
National Governor’s Assodatlori Hall of
the States. Room 333. 444 North Capital
Street, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACD.
.lark Joyce, Designated Federal Official,
Direct line (202) 260-6889, Searetary’s
line (202) 280—6892.
Dateth Demmber . 1992.
Mark Juyes.
Designated FedereIQfJkMI.
IFR Dcc. 94—619 Fl Ied 1—10—94; 8.45 aml
OL& 54 C1 M
CWA 303(d): EPA ’s intent To Approve
and Availability of State List
Submissions
AGENCY Environmental Protection
Agency. Region IL
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY This notice announces the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) intent to approve the lists
submitted to the U.S. EPA pursuant to
Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d)
by the State of New York. the State of
New Jersey, and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico on September 4, 1992. May
20. 1993. and November 28. 1993,
respectively. Please be advised that the
U.S. Virgin Islands is not required to
submit a 303(d) bet because there are no
‘vater quality-limited segments In the
U.S. Virgin Islands requiring Total
Maximum Daily Loads (I MDL). EPA
issued its Intent to approve the New
York State September 4. 1992 list
submittal on May 18. 1993. With regard
to the New Jersey May 20, 2993 and the
Puerto Rico November 18,2993 list
submittals, although EPA has not yet
sent out approval letters. EPA does
intend to approve both of these list
submittals as well.
In the case of the Puerto Rico section
303(d) list, it should be noted that
several modifications, which will affect
the Commonwealth’s section 303(d) list,
have been agreed upon by the Puerto
Rico Environmental Quality Board
(PR S) and EPA subsequent to the
November 28, 1993 submittaL These
proposed modiflr tio reflect recent
negotiations between PREQB and EPA
regarding 1994 permitting priorities In
Puerto Rico. The carrent Puerto Rico
section 303(d) list does not reflect these
specific modifications. Since the section
303(d) process is ongoing. another
comprehensive review/revision of all
State section 303(d) lists is scheduled to
take place in April. 1994. At that time
the Puerto Rico sectIon 303(d) list will
be updated to include all agreed upon
modifications.
EPA Is soliciting public comment on
its intent to approv, these 303(d) lists.
which, together with EPA’S tentative
approval documents, are available to the
public.
DATES: C ammente on EPA’s intent to
approve these lists and the list
submittals, must be submitted to EPA
on or before February 10. 1994.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the lists submitted
pursuant to 303(d) and EPA’S tentative
approval documents can be obtained by
writing to Mr. Wayne Jackson, Surface
Water Quality Branch. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency Region I!,
Jacob K. Javfts Federal BuIlding. 26
Federal Plans, New York. New York
10278 or calling (212) 264—5685.
Comments on these items shouldbe
sent to Mr. Wayne Jackson at the above
address.
FOR FURTHER IFORMATION CONTAC ’fl Mr.
Wayne Jackson, telephone (212) 264—
5685.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). as
amended by the Water Quality Act of
1987, requires every State to: Identify
those waters within its boundaries for
which the effluent limitations reqwred
by section 301 (b)(1)(A) and section
301(b)(1)(B) of the CWA are not
stringent enough to meet any water
quality standard applicable to such
waters. Each State is required to identify
the pollutants causing the impairment
of the listed waters. Section 303(d)
further requires the State to establish a
priority ranking for such waters, taking
Into account the severity of the
pollution and the designated uses of
these waters. Finsily, the State Is
required to identify waters targeted for
TMDL development over the next two
(2) years. TMDLs establish the allowable
pollutant loadings necessary for a
waterbody to meet applicable Slate
water quality standards. State 303(d)
lists and ThIDLs are submitted to EPA
for approval or disapprovaL The
deadline for submitting the above lists
to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) was October
22,1992 (See 57 FR 33047 (July 24,
1992)).
Consistent with 40 CPR 130.7, New
York. New Jersey and Puerto Rico
submitted to EPA. fur approval, their
listing decisions under section 303(d)
on September 4, 1992. May 20. 1993.
and November 18, 1993. respectively.
EPA today notices its intent to approve
thes. lists and solicits public comment
on both the intent to approve and on the
lists. EPA is soliciting comments on the
New York. New Jersey. and Puerto Rico
1992 CWA section 303(d) lIsts and
approvals. All future biennial
submissions of the 303(d) lIsts will
provide for public comment at the Slate
leveL
The lists and approvals are available
by mail or I ’orpub l iclnspectfon at the
EPA Region 2 office by appointment. To
request a copy of a list and/or approval.
to make arrangements to examine the
lists, or to submit comments, contest the
Agency representative identified above.
Comments must be submitted within
thirty (30) days of the publication of this
notice.
Following the close of the w uent
period, EPA will make a final
determination on the State lists and will
issue a response to comments received.
A copy of EPA’s decision and response
to comments document will be sent to
all parties submitting comments in
response to this notice.
Dame 27,1993.
William J. Meezyeekl,
Acting Regional AdminhrVatcr
IPR Doc. 94420 FlIed 1—10-04: &45 am)
mine coos eri e
(FRL-4823-8l
Water Pollution Control; Approval of
Application by South Dakota To
Administer the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Approval of application.
-------
1 36
Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11. 1994/ NotIces
SUMMARY: On December 30. 1993. the
Acting Regional Administrator for the
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region VU!. approved the
application by the State of South Dakota
to administer and enforce the national
pollutant discharge elimination system
(NPDES) program for regulating
discharges of pollutants into waters
within the State.
EFFECTIVE bATE: December 30. 1993.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Janet LaCombe at (3031 293-1593.
NPDES Branch. (8WM-C): U.S.E.P.A..
Region VII I; Denver Place. 999 18th
Street. suite 500; Denver. CO 80202—
2466.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
application of the South Dakota
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) was received by EPA
on April 28. 1993. Several modifications
were made to the application package.
based on discussions between the EPA,
the DENR. and the Office of the
Attorney General. The final changes.
including the signing of the
Memorandum of Agreement by the
Governor, were completed on August
30. 1993.
South Dakota’s application was
described in Federal Register notices
dated September 1 and 9. 1993. at 58 FR
46145 and 47417, and in notices
published In the Rapid City Journal and
the Sioux Falls Argus”Leader on August
27 and September 10, 1993. In the
September 1. 1993 Federal Register
notice and the August 27. 1993
newspaper notices, EPA highlighted
three issues upon which it specifically
requested public comment. These issues
concerned unsigned complaints from
the general public, penalty authority,
and citizen intervention in enforcement
actions.
Copies of South Dakota’s application
package were available for public
review at the EPA Region VI I I office and
at the DENR office In Pierre. South
Dakota. Copies also could be purchased
from the DENR at a cost of $10.00.
EPA provided copies of South
Dakota’s public notices to permitted
facilities, tribal connriI and tribal
environmental agendas. and
environmental groups in South Dakota.
The mailing list used is part of the
record of the program application and
review process. By letter dated August
25. 1993. EPA provided copies of South
Dakota’s application to the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, and to the South
Dakota State Historic Preservation
Officer.
As part of the public comment
process, EPA conducted two public
hearings on South Dakota’s application.
The hearings occurred on October 14,
1993 at the Matthew Training Center,
Joe Foss BuiLding. 523 East Capitol.
Pierre. South Dakota. beginning at 3 and
7 p.m. The first hearing lasted
approximately one hour. and the second
lasted about 45 minutes. The register of
those attending is contained in the
administrative record. In addition, until
October 22. 1993. EPA accepted written
comments from the public. All
comments or objections presented at
either public hearing or received in
writing by EPA Region VIII by October
22. 1993, were considered by EPA.
Comments were received regarding
the following issues: (1) Unsigned
complaints. (2) penalty authority. (3)
citizen intervention, (4) jurisdiction
over Indian Country, (5) pretreatment
program. (6) mechanisms for ensuring
protection of endangered and threatened
species, and (7) overall benefits or lack
of benefits resulting from authorization.
EPA response to all comments are
contained in this notice. Summaries of
the comments and EPA’s responses
follow. The comments and hearing
record are contained in the
administrative record supporting this
notice.
L Unsigned Complaints
Federal regulations at 40 CFR
123.26(b)(3) and (4) require a State
approved to administer the NPOES,
program to maintain a program for
Investigating information regarding
violauons of applicable program and
permit requirements, to maintain
procedures. for receiving and ensuring
proper consideration of information
submitted by the public about violations
of applicable program and permit
requirements. to encourage public
efforts in reporting violations, and to
make available information on reporting
procedures.
As outlined in EPA’s September 1,
1993 Federal Register notice and
August 27. 1993 newspaper notices,
Section 34A—2—l11 of the South Dakota
Codified Laws (SDCL) prohibits the
D JR from performing inspections or
conducting other investigatory activities
pursuant to SDCI. Sections 34A—2—40,
34A—2-44, and 34A—2-45 based on. or
as a result of. information received from
the general public unless the person
providing the information signs a
complaint, which is to remain
confidential with the DENR. The
statement by the South Dakota Attorney
General notes that Information in
complaints from the general public
made to another agency or DENR
program and then referred to the DENR
NPDES program is not considered “as a
result of” a complaint from the gamer
public.
The State has described the means by
which it will consider and respond to
NPDES’related information from the
general public and from other state
governmental agencies. The DENR will
investigate and respond to all citizen
complaints where a signed complaint
form has been received and will
investigate all complaints received from
other government agencies. At the time
an unsigned complaint is received,
DENR will determine whether
appropriate department authorities exist
under any state environmental statute to
handle the unsigned complaint. If not.
the citizen shall be referred to the South
Dakota Department of Emergency and
Disaster Services, the South Dakota
Department of Came. Fish & Parks, or
another appropriate State agency. The
appropriate State agencies shall receive
anonymous complaints and either
investigate under their authorities or
sign and refer the complaint to DENR.
The process used for investigating and
responding to unsigned complaints will
be published in major newspapers in
South Dakota and will be prominently
posted in the main office and the field
offices of the DENR.
In its oversight role, EPA has
established a “hotline” (1—800 —227—
8917) to receive complaints, both
identified and anonymous, regarding
NPDES’.relatad activities in South
Dakota, To communicate this fact to the
general public. EPA will publish the
hotilne number in the Rapid City
“Journal” and the Sioux Falls “Argus-
Leader”, as well as sending a notice to
public interest groups and permitted
facilities. The hotline number may be
used by callers who have Information
concerning a possible violation of an
NPDES permit or program requirement.
The caller will be referred to a staff
member of the EPA Region VU! NPDES
Branch. This staff person will record the
information received and make a
decision whether or not an investigation
is needed. EPA may conduct the
investigation or request that the DENR
Investigate.
A. Comments in Support ,f Sec. 34A-
2-121
Those supporting South Dakota’s
system for addressing unsigned
complaints included the DENR.
municipal, agricultural, and mining
associations, municipalities, another
State agency. and industrial dischargers.
1. Several commenters questioned the
motives of people who submit unsigned
complaints and/or the merits of such
complaints. They referred to the right to
-------
Federal Register I VoL 59. No. 7! Tuesday , January_11.1994 / Notices
1537
face one’s WXU3 I5 . Their comments
induded?
A few persons stated that unsigned
complaints result from feuds, aunks, or
competitors.
Two expressed the opinion that If a
complaint is genuine, the person
making it should have the commitment
to sign it. A representative of an
agricuituralgioup that identified itself
as the prime sponsor of Sec. 34A—2—111
stated that “there should be a greet deal
of responsibility laid at the f..t of these
people maklngthecomplaint’’
(South Dakota Is) a stand-up place
• South Dakota newspapers, by and
large. don’t a pt letters to th. editors
that are unsigned. South Dakota State
agencies. by and large. do not aompt
letters of complaint or phone calls that
are anonymous. South Dakota Attorney
General’s office does not aompt
complaints that are anonymous, with
some exceptions.” Two commenters
stated that a person lsentftled to face
his accusers and is protected from
anonymous harassment. One of theni
cited the Sixth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution,
2. Some commenters Indicated that
the state gvvvu ment and the regulated
ommunfty should be pzot cted from
unsigned cw plalnts:
One city official noted that unsigned
complaints om haves detrimental effect
upon an organization otherwise trying
to work cooperatively to achieve
compliance.
an anonymous phone call or
letter is too easy a method to trigger an
environmental audit• •
“(Section) 34A—2—111 isa necessary
statute that helps to limit the
expenditure of staff thus on frivolous
personal grudge type c0mpI tnt ”
3. Some c ”enters praised DDIR’s
record In conducting investigations and
allowing foe public participation. They
also noted the existence of the EPA
“800” number. Their remarks inciuded
The Secretary, DENR. asserted In his
written statement ‘To our knowledge,
since the passage of this law l )CL
Section 34A—,2—!11). this law has never
hindered our ability to address water
pollution incidents nor has It hindered
public involvement.”
‘ the current SDCL Section
34A—2—11I Is working very well. DENR
is very responsible In investigating
complaints and has a system in place to
guarantee that Investigations take place
a complaint arisee and to keep the
entity of the party making the
,.cmplaint confidential.”
A low commenters referred to the fact
that EPA is maintaining an “800”
number for persons not wishing to
communicate with the state.
4. Several comnnienters indicated that
the stare’s system provides sufficient
opportunity for public participation and
agency investigation of complaints.
They supported this point by
identifying three ways in which Section
34A—2—111 was restricted In its
applicabiHt
a. The prohibition applies to
complaints from the general public, not
to complaints made or passed on by
another federal, state or local level of
government IEDENR determines that It
lacks authority to investigate a
complaint, the complaint Is then
referred to another agency.
b. The prohibition does not apply to
the state’s mming laws, solid waste
laws, and hazardous waste laws. Most
complaints from factory workers will
relate to hazardous waste violations,
which are not covered by this
prohibition. —
c. The prohibition does not apply to
DENR’s nght of entry, to the Issuance of
an emergency order, to determinations
of responsibility for discharges, to waste
disposal into state waters, and to more
general authorities to Investigate
violations of Chapter 34A-Z.
B. Comments Opposing Sec. 34A-2-fl1
Those opposing South Dakota’s
system for handling unsigned
complaints included erwkrrmmental
groups and individuals working in
municipal facilities.
1. Some coramenters stated that
people hesitate to sign complaints
because they fear reprisals:
An anonymous Individual who
described himself or herself as a
“person employed In the wastewater
and pretreatment field In the State of
South Dakota” stated, “Many times
people are reluctant to sign complaints
because of some type of repercussion.”
‘It I. a reality that many individuals
are reluctant to report suspected or
obvious discharge violations for fear of
reprisal. Reel or perceived, it isa
reality.”
An environmental group (which
stated that it had recently concluded a
successful citizen’s suit against a mining
company in South Dakota) commented
that it had filed written complaints with
the D R based on anonymous tips that
It. rather than the D IR, had received.
Citizens had been reluctant to file a
complaint even if It was considered
“confidentiaL” This group also stated
that It had never’ found any citizen
complaint to be frivolous or harassing.
2. Several ccmnmenters criticized the
process for Investigating and responding
to unsigned complaints, described In
Item E.4. an page 7 of the MOA. Their
comments included:
“The MOA should contain
unequivocal language setting forth a
specific procedure for SDDENR to
follow for maintaining (1) an
investigation of violations and (2)
procedures for ensuring proper
consideration of information from the
public about violations.”
“We do find fault, at times, with the
depth and timeliness of the
‘Investigation’ conducted by DDIR
upon our filed complaints.
Investigations conducted several days to
weeks after a complaint is flied may
miss a violation.”
“In South Dakota. with its sinai)
population and overlapping networks of
personal and business relationships,
unsigned complaints—if they are
seriously considered by SDDDIR are
likely to be the most fruitful sources of
violation reporting,”
“It is not clear * ‘whether
department authorities exist within
SDDENR to appropriately handle
unsigned citizen complaints If referred
by another State agency. . . . We do not
consider it appropriate to burden other
State agencies whose adminL .trative and
field staff are already clearly
overworked.’Z
“Any unsigned complaint will simply
fall into the cracks between agencies
and nothing WI)! be done.”
1’he Departments of Agriculture and
Game, Fish and Parks do not have
authority or expertise for dealing with
complaints that are properly the
concern of SDDENR.”
3. Some comniorlters indicated that
SOCI. prevented South Dakota’s
application from meeting pertinent
authorization requirements:
‘We believe neither SDCL 34A—2—1 11
nor EPA’s proposed solution meets the
requirements of Section 402(b)(2X8) and
Section 402(b )(7) of the Clean Water
Act, and 40 R Sections 123.26(b)(3)
and (4) • . EPA should withhold
NPDES delegation until SDCL 34A—Z’-
111 is repealed.”
“The requirements of forty (sic) CFR
Sections 123.26(b)(3 ) and (4) will not be
met under the MOA because of the
convoluted nature of provisions for
receiving and dealing with unsigned
complaints.”
4. Some comnienters stated that the
state’s procedure for handling unsigned
complaints created the impression that
the state favored special Interests over
the general public
“If there’s a problem. (most dtlzenst
want action, no matter wham they call.
For a citizen to be told they have to cell
another agency to get a water problem
addressed Just confirms (the) citizen’s
view of government as controlled by
special interests who get laws like 34A—
-------
1538
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 7 / Tuesday, lanuary 11. 1994 / Notices
2—111 approved’ • . State
government should not be empowered
by EPA to aipple or make more difficult
and confusing citizens’ ability to work
directly with the proper state regulators
because of paranoia on the part of the
special interests who are regulated
under water quality laws.” Two
individuals commented in a letter that
they were “appalled of (sic) the manner
in which the State intends on handling
or rather not handling citizen
complaints and the legalese double talk
the State Attorney General’s office is
trying to portray as meaningful
procedures.”
C. EPA’S Response to Comments on Sec.
34A—2—2 12
The State has a program and
procedures for public reporting of
violations that ensures their proper
consideration, even though the
existence of § 34A—2—111 appears to
require a more cumbersome process
than is desirable. EPA might propose a
simpler program or procedures for a
hypothetical “model” state program.i
However, under the Clean Water Act, a
State is provided flexibility in achieving
the minimum requirements of the Act,
including those for public participation.
If approached by another state on
suggestions for public reporting, EPA
would recommend against Inclusion of
a Section 111.type provision. EPA
encourages South Dakota to repeal
Section lii as inefficient and having
the potential to limit the disaetlon of
the very state agency entrusted to
exercise enforcement discretion.
EPA doubts that facilities subject to
DENR investigations could use Section
111 as a means to avoid the
consequences for failing to comply with
§ 34A-2-40. -44, and -45. DENR
investigators are not required by any
provision of state law to identify the
basis for the information leading to
investigation. Moreover, DENR has
authority to Initiate prosecution based
on verified Information.
Notwithstanding questions about
enforceability, DENR has Indicated its
intention to faithfully implement
applicable provisions of state law, as
well as to implement public
participation procedures to meetthe
requirements of 40 R 123.27(d). EPA
encourages DDIR to periodically
evaluate the effectiveness of its public
reporting procedures in providing
public participation in the NPDES
enforcement program in South Dakota,
particularly In light of the existence of
Section lii.
The fact that the prohibition in 34A—
2—111 does not apply to complaints
from governmental entities or to other
State environmental programs provides
the State some options for the general
public to use in reporting concerns
about possible violation or problems
related to wastewater treatment or
effluent. The description of the State
process will be published in major
newspapers in South Dakota and posted
in the DENR offices located throughout
the State. Therefore, mechanisms exist
to ensure proper consideration of
information from the general public and
are sufficient to meet the minimum
requirements of public participation
consistent with 40 CFR 123.26.
EPA acknowledges there may be some
delay in investigation of information
received from the general public
because of the requirement for a signed
complaint. South Dakota has expLained,
however, that the requirement should
not unduly delay prompt investigation
when the member of the general public
indicates a willingness to identify
himself or herself and sign a comilaint.
The volume of unsigned complaints
which are received by any one entity is
not expected to be so great that it would
strain the resources available to that
organization. However, the DENR is
responsible for assuring whatever
resources needed to respond to
unsigned complaints are available, as
well as providing adequate resources to
administer the NPDES program as a
whole.
EPA notes that the adequacy and
effectiveness of DENR’s public reporting
requirements are easily verified, both by
EPA and the general public. If the
described procedures do not, in
practice, provide for adequate and
affective public reporting, DENR’s
compliance with public reporting
requirements may be reexamined.
Should subsequent administrative or
judicial interpretations of Section 111
broaden its scope from that described In
the program submission or otherwise
impair implementation of the public
reporting procedures. EPA may
reevaluate whether the existence of
Section 111 yet enables DENR to
adequately administer the 4PDES
program.
Motives of Anonymous Tlpsters, Rights
of the Accused, and Complainant Fear
of Reprisal
EPA does not dispute that some
complaints may be submitted with
questionable motives o that signed
complaints may often be more credible
than unsigned ones. “Crank” calls may
be from disgruntled neighbors or
business competitors. However, a
statute is not needed to eliminate the
problems associated with frivolous
calls. The DENR has professionally
trained staff capable of screening out
such calls, based on the information
provided or not provided. Such cells are
also possible from persons who do sign
their names.
The fact that the prohibition applies
only to the general public and not to
other governmental entities allows the
NPDES program to use information
referred to it by these entities. This
information may be provided as
problems the entities have identified in
the course of their duties (including
accepting referrals). It may also come
from problems identified by
complainants to other entities about
their programs which contain
information aLso applicable to the
NPDES program.
Regarding the rights of the accused,
the Sixth Amendment right to face
accusers applies in auninal cases when
the testimony of an informant is to be
used in trial. However, if an informant’s
tip is independently confirmed by a law
enforcement agency and the testimony
of the informant is not needed at trial,
then any rights under this amendment
have not been affected.
Fear of reprisal may occur even in
situations where a person does not have
to provide a name, since in small
communities it might be fairly easy to
figure out or at least narrow down the
persons likely to have reported the
information. In addition, employees
may fear reprisal from their employers
should they report possible violations of
NPDES statutes. regulations, or permit
conditions. However, such fears may be
diminished by the fact that SDCL 34A—
2—ill requires the Identity of the
complainant to be kept confidential.
Protection of Agencies and Regulated
Community/Favoring Special Interests
A frivolous claim may place a strain
on an orga i’ t1on trying to cooperate.
However, the potential for strain Is
offset by the potential to promote the
general good which complaints may
provide the State in identifying and
correcting problems early on. Also, It
would seem that there would be few
Instances of complaints being merely
frivolous or harassing.
There Is always the chance that
actions by governmental entities may be
misconstrued by the general public.
This is not a basis for determining a
program does not meet the requirements
for delegation. However, this is an issue
both the SDD JR and the EPA will be
sensitive to as they administer and
oversee the NPDES program.
The State of South Dakota Is a
sparsely populated state with relatively
few Industries. Moreover, the existence
of overlapping business and personal
-------
Federal Register / VoL 59. No. 7 / Tuesday. Januan, 11 1994 / Notl
ietworks provides an opportunity for
someone removed from a situation to
provide information Instead of someone
concerned about retaliation from an
employer. South Dakota’s small
population and overlapping networks
may be productive sources of
information. These networks can work
to the advantage of the NPDES program
In that possible NPDES violations,
particularly those affecting surface
waters may be reported in connection
with information supplied to other
environmental programs. For example,
according to the D 4R. the DDJR
Ground Water program has the lead on
spills and contacts the NPDES staff
when there Is a potential for surface
waters to be affected. The Mining
program will generally receive any tips
regarding mining problem spills!
discharges (e.g. cyanide) and share them
with the NPDES stalL Came Fish &
Parks recently referred a case of a
discharge without a permit to the DENR.
That agency also uses Its own authority
when thedischar ge lsintheareaofa
fishery. All of these programs are not
affected by the prohibition In SOCL
34A—2—l11 and, in the past. have
ceived and forwarded complaints
‘ilch also related to NPDES-telated
. .ctlvities.
The concern expressed that
information may fall between the cracks
is a valid one. It is possible this could
occur in any process for receiving
information sources outside the
administering office. However, the
system established for investigating and
responding to complaints provides that
the D 1R will Investigate and respond
to all citizen complaints where a signed
complaint form has been received and
will Investigate all complaints received
from other government agencies.
Conclusion
EPA determines that the procedure
South Dakota has established is
adequate to ply with the Clean
Water Act and with NPDES federal
regulations. South Dakota has
established a process to deal with Issues
raised by the general public by
accepting signed complaints and being
required to keep the identity of the
source confidential and by referring
other complaints to another State
agency. The Governor. as a signatory to
the MOA. has mltted to follow the
process for receiving and responding to
“,rrnation from sources outside the
ce NPDES program.
Though section 111 may not provide
an adequate program for public
reporting in other states or for other
programs. under the particular
circumstances of the DENR NPDES
program. the state procedures are
adequate for the following reasons: (1)
South Dakota Is not heavily
industrialIzed. (2) the prohibition
pertains only to water programs and not
other media programs, (3) the state is
sparsely populated for the most part. (4)
the right of entry (S 34A—2—46) is not
impaired. (5) the prohibition provision
does not appear to be directly
enforceable by dlschargers. and (6) the
State NPDES program retains the
authority to respond in emergencies (s
34A—2—68), to enforce ag ln4 persons
causing pollution of waters (see 34A—2 —
21), and to conduct investigations to
determine the responsible person for
causing a discharge which may cause or
has caused pollution of state waters (see
34A—2—71.1) regardless of the source of
information leading to these actions.
The situation in South Dakota-is such
that there are overlapping networks of
state agencies and there are active
environmental groups which will
identify issues on behalf of their
membership and of individuals who
communicate Information and concerns
to their groups.
EPA notes that anonymous tips are
just one source of complaints, albeit a
significant source. The statute does not
place restrictions on any other sources
of Information or other activities than
those defined in 34A—2.-40, —44, and
—45.
EPA oversight includes an hotline
number (1—600—227—8917) to receive
complaints from all sources. Oversight
also includes monitoring the DENR
process and results from public
participatIon In compliance and
enfw , maiit If there appears to be a
problem. EPA will revisit this aspect of
the program with D 4R.
IL Penalty Authority
Sectirm 402(b)(2)(D) of the CWA
requires an authorized state program to
have authority to Inspect, monitor,
enter, and require reports to at least the
same ardent as required by section 308
of the CWA. Section 402(b117) of the
CWA requires an authorized state
program to have adequate authority to
abate violations of permits or the permit
program through penalties and other
means of enforcement. EPA State
NPDES y øm requirements at 40 R
123.27(afl3)(I) provide that an approved
state pni 6 um Is to have the authority to
recover avil penalties for the violation
of “any NPDES filing requirement” and
“any duty to allow or carry out
Inspection. eutty or monitoring
activitles, us well as for the violation
of any NPDES permit condition or any
regulation or order Issued by the state
program director.
1539
As outlined in EPA’s September 1,
1993, Federal Register notice and
August 27, 1993 newspaper notices,
South Dakota does not have direct
statutory authority to collect civil
penalties, or criminally enforce, a
failure to comply with SDC1 34A—2—44
(record-keeping), 34A-2-45 and -46
(Inspection authorities), due to a lack of
citation to SDCL 34A—2—75 (penalty
provision) in these sections. However,
because the Department (of
Environment and Natural Resourms)
can prosecute (both civilly and
criminally) violations of permit
conditions and because it can set permit
conditions for recording, reporting,
monitoring, entry, and Inspection under
34A-2—4 0. It can enforce these statutes
fo!permjtted facilities.
The Department can, with regard to
Unpermitted facilities, obtain both the
records and entry for inspections
pursuant to search warrants issued on
the basis of the criminal provisions of
SDCL 34A—2--75 and the violation of
SDCL 34A-2-36 (operating without the
required permit). Civil penalties for
failure to comply with SDCI. 34A-2--44,
-45, and -‘46 by an unpermitted facility
are available only through violation of
an order issued by the Department
Pursuant to SDCL 34A—2—53.
A. Comments Favoring Existing Penalty
Authority
The DENR and various members of
the regulated community expressed
opinions that the lack of a direct
authority to impose penalties for
violations of the cited statutes would
have little affect on the ability of the
State to exact penalties for failure to
Comply with the statutes.
One commenter from the regulated
Community thought that no detrimental
effects would be expected and,
therefore, the system for collecting
penalties was adequate until such time
as the matter was corrected by the
legislative process, The Secretary of the
DENR noted that the Attorney General’s
Statement indicated that reporting
requirements will be included In the
permit, and are therefore enforceable for
pennhtted facilities. As to unpermitted
facilities, the Secretary of the DENR
(who would be the party issuing orders)
stated that the DENR could Issue an
roforcernent order In a timely manner to
require any necessary reporting or
wnpllng and that the DENR could
esfoyce these orders. The Secretary also
‘ired a recent water pollution
case settlement which
z1uded a penalty of $489,000 and was
Vt .omplished without the authority to
‘f’rce any NPDES condition or
‘remain. He stated that dele ation
-------
1540
Federal Ragisiar I Vol. 59, No. 7 / Tuesday, January Ii, 1994 1 NotIces
would only in ease the abilities of the
D JR to enforce violations of the stats’s
envfroi ms ntal laws. Another stats
agency noted that “It appears
that the case where this EPA con m
would be applicable Le for facilities that
are discharging without a permit and
not keeping records. For these facilities,
failure to have a permit would be a more
severe violation than the failure to keep
records.”’.
One commenter thought that p niaIthuie
for Items normally found in a permit
should not begin to a us for an
unpermitted facility until after the state
issues an order.
B. Comments Criticizing Existing
Penalty Authority
Those who oritidead the existing
authority were the pret?eetm nt
coordinator for a municipal treatuient
facility and one environmental group.
They questioned the ability of the
authority to stand up to judicial review
and the rvundabout means the DENR
would have to use to exercise the
authority in collecting penalties.
One .m.m.fltI expressed the
opinion that the state’s authority to
collect penalties from unpermitted
facilities Is not clear, particularly in
light of the Freeman,. South Dakota
lawsuit. In that case, the court found
that Mr. Freeman’s dvii rights were
violated when, upon refusing State
health Inspectors entry, he war s v d
with a dosure order The commenter
stated that the finding was made
because the citation under Ucensure
statutes failed to ate an ____
prevision.
An environmental group indicated
that the State’s roundabout legal
reasoning to support Its authority to
obtain ie rds and entry to Inspect at
unpermitted facilities may be
overlooked bye EndS. faced with what
appears to be a clear fathue to provide
for i i,,,biRI and dvii sanctions for
re ord-keeping or Inspection vIot f1
Specific penalty provision language
must hi added to 34A—Z-44, -45, and
‘-48 In ordertocomplyw1th4O R
123.27 1a)(3)(fl.
Another environmental
stated that the state should have direct
stQt dwy authority to collect civil
penalties and to oriminaily enforce a
failure to comply with Sec. 34A—Z-44.
They also noted that the MOA should
require South Dakctii to adopt less
roundabout methods to obtain records
and entry and to be able to do so
without the DDJR having to Issue an
order. They believed that formal
Issuance of orders and search warrants
can take too much time.
C EPA’S Respi n to Comments on
Penalty Authority
EPA’s authorization regulations
require civil penalties to be rec ,rable
for the violation of any NPDES permit
condition: any NPDES filing
requirement; any duly to allow or carry
out Inspection. entry or monitoring
activities: or any regulation or orders
issued by the State Director. See 40 R
123.27(a)(3Ui). The State has
demonstrated an adequate authority and
methodology for collecting penalties
from permitted and unpermitted
facilities. However, EPA would
recommend a legislative amendments to
34A—2-44. -45, and —46 to define
failure to comply with each as a
violation enforceable through 34A-2-
53. These amendments would allow a
more direct, and thereby more effective,
Implementation of the enfwwuent
program.
Adequacy of the Ability To Recover
Penalties
The State has shown that legal
mechanisms exist for exacting penalties
tied to permitted and unpermitted
facilities which fail to comply with
SDa. 34A—2-44, —45. and -46. The
authorities used axe not specifically
based on a violation of these statutes.
they do provide for ‘civil
penalties to be recoverable’ for refusal to
allow or carry out Inspection. entry or
monitoring activities, which Is what 40
C7R 123.27(a)(31W requires.
The situation in Freeman v. South
Dakota does not apply to the State’s
authority to collect penalties for re 8 ’
to allow the state to Inspect potential
water pollution violations. In that case.
State Inspector. had ciimmanlly
terminated a campground’s license
because the campground’s operator
would not allow the state to Inspect
without a warrant. In Freeman, dvii
rights were violated because the Stat.
Inspectors Iw d statutory enfor’ ” ’t
authority. In the Case of South Dakota
NPI)ES. SDDENR does have adequate
statutory authority to issue
wImInlvaftve orders. The South Dakota
Attorney General has stated South
Dakota has adequate statutory &uthiwity
to pl the program described.
Calculation of Penalties
Ignorance of the law is not an
argument for deferring piiii lfla The
regulated community is notified through
public notice of the requirements for
permits. right of entry. etc. It Is their
responsibility to be aware of these
requirements end be arocuntable for
them from the time the requirements
become effective.
EPA ees that the penalty for failui
to haves permit might be more severe
than far a failure to p re ds by
ItseLf. However, both requirements are
normally available to the regulator in
taking enforcement actions. The
existence of a penalty for a discharge
without a permit does not, by itselL
offset the need for a merhi.ni m to
collect penalties for failure to allow or
carry out Inspection, entry or
monitoring requirements. As noted
earlier, such a mechani in exists.
Ragardingthe date at which a
violation begins, the State has asserted
that ai 1 v .inis*rative orders or search
warrants could be issued within one or
two days. Therefore, the number of days
of violation used to calculate penalties
for unpermitted facilities would be
almost the same as for permitted
facilities. In cases whore a discharge
causes pollution of any waters of the
state, the penalty can be calculated for
each day the discharge occurred as a
violation of 34A—2—21. subject to a
§ 34A—Z—75 order. The number of days
of violation is ust one factor applied in
calculating penalties. The small
difference in the number of days of
violation between permitted and
unpermitted facilities could be offset fr
the presence of other factors in
calculating and negotiating the final
penally (e.g. the existence of another
violation .A1 qtharge without a permit).
Therefore, the Immediate revision of
SDCL 34A-2-44, -45. and -48 is not
required. However. EPA does consider
such revisions desirable, so that the
State would hav, more direct remedies
for these violations.
It should also be noted that EPA, in
Its oversight role, can take enforcement
action. . Typically. EPA would send to
the State a Notice of Violation and give
the State 30 days to take action. If the
State were not to take sufficient action,
- lnc1i .1big not collecting • large enough
penalty. EPA could file an order and
collect penalties from the date the
violations started. Qtlzeu suits are also
a means to assure appropriate penalties
are collected.
Conclusion
EPA finds that the pmnaliy authority
and process for collecting penalties Is
adequate and serves ass protection
Ag iil . r ni .rmepliance with water
pollution control law, rules, and
pmrmit EPA’s oversight role offers a
second level of protection. A third level
of protection Is offered by related
statutes, such as prohibiting discharges
which may cause or cause pollution of
waters of th . state (see 34A- .Z- 21J.
prohibiting discharge of waste or
pol1uta ts without a permit (see 34A-2-
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 7 I Tuesday, January 11, 1994 I Notices
1541
36). and prohibiting reduction of
existing water quality (see 34A—2—22).
Therefore, the DD1R NPDES program
adequately meets the requirements for
recovering penalties.
UI. Citizen Intervention
EPA’s September 1. 1993 Federal
Register and August 27. 1993
newspaper notices requested public
comment on South Dakota’s statutory
procedure for citizen Intervention In
administrative enforcement actions, as
required by 40 R 123.27(d). South
Dakota has certified that It allows
Intervention as of right in administrative
enforcement actions pursuant to SDQ
Sec. 34A—1O—2. It has indicated that
Sec. 34A-1O-2, considered alone,
appears to grant merely “permissive
intervention”; that is, Intervention If no
other party objects). However, South
Dakota has also certified that If a citizen
is denied Intervenor status in an
administrative case, he may file a
lawsuit In circuit court to have the court
order him to be named as a party in the
administrative proceeding, pursuant to
Sec. 34A—1O —5. Because of the
possibility far such a circuit court
proceeding. South Dakota’s Attorney
General construes SDCI. 34A—10—2 to
allow mandatory intervention In
administrative procedures. The
Memorandum of Agreement. a
document signed both by the State of
South Dakota and the EPA, states that
the SDDENR will allow intervention as
of right In civil proceedings to at least
the same extent required by 40 CFR
123.27(d)(1) and shall not oppose
Intervention in administrative
proceedings as provided by § 34A-1O-2.
A. Comments Favoring Existing
Intervention Procedure
Members of the regulated community
commented that the statutory procedure
afforded dtIw’ an adequate right of
intervention. One specific comment.
made by a member of the regulated
community, was that the State
assurance in the MOA yi j.lr,i the citizen
right to intervention mandatoiy. This
commenter also noted that the Attorney
General Statement Interprets SDQ .
34A-1O-2 to mean that the citizen’s
right to intervene is mandatory.
8. Comments Opposing Existing
intervention Piocedure
Environmental groups and individual
c1fi’ n criticized the existing
intervention procedure and Its
application by the DENL
1. Some cnrnmenters stated that
Intervention rights were not being
honored.
One environmental group stated that
it was ‘ ‘ ‘especially concerned
about the problems posed’ ‘ ‘by the
progressive subtle and not so subtle
deterioration of participation by citizens
and non-profit citizens organizations in
quasi. judicial hearings.” It referred to
individual citizens being ignored at
public hearings, public documents
being unavailable for review and
comment before a contested case
hearing, and decisions being given little
publicity. One Individual cnn mented
that at a public hearing in the Fall of
1992 he••’ ‘ ‘watched (and objected)
as BME Board members subverted the
rules of that hearing by allowing a
mining industry lawyer take control of
the hearing. Board members allowed the
attorney to cross examine citizens as if
they were under oath when the citizens
were simply there to testify on their
own behalL The incidents are a matter
of record. They are also quif typical of
DENIL”
Another environmental group cited
instances where It or Individual citizens
were excluded from permit
modification. remediatlon, and
negotiation processes.
Another individual citizen’s letter
provided comments which”’
centerfedi on the State of South Dakota’s
continued and specIfic efforts to stifle
and judicially dissuade individuals
from pursuing environmental issues.
They concluded that lOlbviously, the
state of South Dakota has little
understanding of citizen participation
and rights to involvement.”
“Politically powerful applicants
regularly ‘short-circuit’ the contested
case procedure with active help from
the Attorney General and the DENR. In
several controversial cases’ ‘ ‘DENR
end/or the applicant have used various
procedures to obtain ‘quickie hearings’
designed to thwart due process and a
fair hearing. One state board, at the
urging of the Attorney General.’ ‘
carved out a novel justification, citing
SEQ. 1—22—27. that allows applicants
the right to short-circuit the contested
case process.”
TM A circuit court remedy for denial of
Intervenors status Is NO remedy because
of expense and unwieldiness.”
2. Conunenters expressed the concern
that public Interest and environmental
groups must be represented by an
attorney at contested cases hearings.
An environmental group stated that
DENR has denied them Intervention in
administrative hearings if they are not
represented by an attorney. They noted
that the State’s application does not
clearly state whether an attorney Is
required.
“Public Interest groups must be
represented by an attorney at contested
case hearings. Since hardly any of us
can afford such, the public interest has
rarely been represented in the past few
years.”
“The Board lof Minerals and the
Environment) Ihias so decreed. and the
state Attorney General’s office has
rendered an opinion of agreement that
only attorney’s (sic) can present cases
before the Board If the group appearing
before the Board is an association,
corporation, or other similar entity. The
Board has effectively prevented
environmental groups from appearing
before the Board without the
considerable expense of an attorney. It
Is our understanding that other State
Boards do not have the attorney
requirement.”
C EPA’S Response to Comments
Concerning Intervention Procedure
EPA has determined that DD4R
intervention authority and procedures
adequately meets the requirement of 40
CFR 123.27(d). CItizen intervention
rights will be honored. There Is
currently no requirement For public
interest groups to be represented by
attorneys at NPDES contested case
proceedings.
Honoring Intervention Rights
The great majority of the comments
expressing concerns with the
application of intervention rights
pertained to non.NPDES State program
topics (e.g. mining, sewage ash,
landfills) and a State board (Board of
Minerals and Environment) which will
not administer the NPDES program in
South Dakota.
South Dakota statutes, rules, and
program documents provide citizen
cc ss to Information. SDCL 1—27—1
specifically allows for open inspection
of all records and documents during
normal business hours. The MOA (page
7, Item E.1) provides public aocess to
NPDES files during normal working
hours. Public notice of proposed general
permits, major permits, and
pretreatment program applications is
provided for in the MOA (page 7. item
E.3) and the Program Description (page
9). South Dakota Rule 74:03:13:02
requires the DENR to public notice any
contested case hearing requested and
the reasons for the hearing. The public
notice of any proposed settlement of a
State enforcement action is required
only when the authority which allows
Intervention as of right is not
demonstrated (see 40 CFR 123.27(d)).
‘The Attorney General Statement
construes the language of SEQ.. 34A—
10—2 concerning intervention to be
-------
1542
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No 7 / Tuesday. lanuary 11. 1994/ Notices
mandatory In addition, both the MOA
(pap 3. item AiM and the Pn
Desaiption (page 19) allow for citinen
intervention as of right in civil
proceedings equivalent to that required
by 40 QR 123.Z5(d)(1).
Repre utation by an Attorney
The South Dakota Bar Association has
issued an ethics opinion that
appearance before administrative
ageedes on behalf of corporations or
ass ‘)dations must be by licensed
attor ys. The ruling concerning
representation at contested case
hearings was in rthienca to contested
case hearings held by the Board of
Minerals and Environment. The
requirement for representation by an
attorney does not appear to apply to the
NPDES program. However, even in the
case of the Board of Minerals and
Environment, the Board does not
exclude individual citizens from full
participation at hearings, but applies the
requirement for legal representation of
organizations.
The DENR dauBed in an addbndum
to the MOA regarding the NPDES
program that individual members of the
general public and nonproBi
organizations shall not be required to be
represented by attorneys in NPDES
program cont sted case hearings to the
extent allowed by the State Bar
Association and the Stain Supreme
Court EPA believes that a state bar
v1 tion does not have the authority
to direct the policies and procedures of
a state agency which derives its
authority from the state legislature. EPA
does recognize thata state bar
association can constrain the activities
of individual attorneys employed by a
state agency. In its overnght role. EPA
will monitor future rulings of the South
Dakota Bar cwj2tkm and the State
Supreme Court regarding citizen
intervention and whether
enviso, .mntiII organizationa are being
required to be represented by attorneys.
If either of thessoomn. EPA will
consider the impact these rulings and
requirements have on the viability of the
Slata’a Nrut. enforcement program.
Conclusion
EPA has determined that DENR
intervention authority end procedures
adequately meats the requirement of 40
C ’R 123.27(d).
IV. JuriaA i Oemindian Cou tiy
As outlined in EPA’s September 1.
1993 Federal Re er and August 27,
1993 newspaper notices. EPA withheLd
from NPDES authorization
consideration these lands which were in
Indian Country or for which there was
significant controversy over whether or
not the land was Indian Country. As
noted earlier. EPA provided copies of
South Dakota’s public notices to tribal
councils and tribal environmental
agencies. Tribal governments and
affected permittees were also provided
with copies of the list of permitted
facilities which EPA would continue to
administer.
In withholding authorization for these
areas, EPA was not making a
determination as to whether or not
South Dakota had adequate jurisdiction.
This issue was considered deferred.
Nevertheless, a number of comments
were received regarding jurisdiction. No
comments were received from tribal
councils or tribal environmental
organizations.
A. Comments Regarding EPA’s
Conthwed Administration of the NPDES
Program in tndian Countiy
One commenter, a member of the
regulated community, stated that EPA’s
retaining authority within the identified
Indian Reservations should lighten the
load for SDDENR.
A number of commenters however,
disagreed with EPA’s adniinicierlng the
program in Indian Country or land in
controversy. Some of the comments
were th. following:
•• ‘ ‘EPAisassertinge
jurisdictional authority which it cannot
for regulatory and resource reasons,
carry out: the result is Inconsistent
environmental protection, and some
geographical areas left without
environmental protection’’ If EPA
Insists that it carve out geographical
areas of the state which should not have
equal envirozunental protection. then I
want to make it very clear that the Stats
of South Dakota will further pursue the
Issue of jurisdiction on non-Indian
lands within reservation boundaries.”
“To the extant that EPA retains
authority over facilities located on lands
other than retained IniI r* allotments,
we believe EPA violates the holding
• (thatl exclusive tribal and federal
jurisdiction is limited to the retained
allotments’ • Webelievethe better
policy, at least as it applies to former
reservation areas. Is to grant the State
authority unless the Tribe can show
authority for the dischargers being
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Tribe or federal government”
“We feet South Dakota has
demonstrated its intent and ability to
administer programs fairly in the entire
state. Therefore, the SDOENR should
administer the NPDES program
throughout the State. The department
will need to work closely with tribal
governments. Splitting the non-Federal
responsibilities could result In
ineffective protection of the waters of
the state.”
A state agency expressed concern that
the split in administering the program
would cause confusion.
B. EPA’s Response to Comments
Regarding Jurisdiction Over lndiair
Country
As noted in the public notice, EPA
made the decision to withhold
authorization to administer the NPDES
program on “Indian Country,” as
defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. which
includes lands inside reservation
boundaries and trust lands found
outside reservations. For the most part,
these include nine Federal Indian
reservations:
1. Qieyeime River Indian Reservation
2. Crow Creek Indian Reservation
3. Flandreau Indian Reservation
4. Lower Brule indian Reservation
5. Pine Ridge Indian Reservation
6. Rosebud Indian Reservation (includes
Todd County and portions of
Millette and Cregory Counties)
7. Sisseton Indian Reservation
8. Standing Rock Indian Reservation
9. Yankton Indian Reservation.
This Issue was deferred until a
satisfactory demonstration of
jurisdiction over Indian Country is
made by the State of South Dakota or
another governmental entity. Otherwise.
delegation of any part of the program
would have to be held up pending a
lengthy resolution of this complicated
issue.
While a number of nmn onts were
received regarding jurisdiction, this
issue is deferred until such time as an
appropriate analysis is made of the
State’s authority to assert jurisdiction
over lands for which EPA Cs retaining
jurisdiction. EPA will sp .- ’Rrtty
copies of public notices of future
assertions to those who provided
comments, so they may make their
comments during the appropriate public
comment period.
It should be noted that EPA has
prepared a list of NPDES-perznitted
facilities which will continue to be
administered by EPA. Operators or
owners of facilities subject to the
NPDES program which are located on
these lands should continue to send
original or renewal permit applications
to EPA. They will be notified of this at
the time all permittees are notified of
the program authorization d 4 ion.
Persons with questions as to whether
their facilities may be in Ind ian Country
axe advised to consult with the Bureau
of Indian Affairs and the EPA,
-------
Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11. 1994 / Notices
1543
V. Prdreatment Program
A state pretreatment program must
meet the requirements of 40 C R
403.10(0 before being approved for
program administration by the EPA.
Under 40 R 403.10(fl(1)(i) and
403.3(j). an approved state program
must have the authority to require
industrial users to comply with
pretreatment standards for specific
industrial subcategories, as established
by EPA regulations in 40 D ’R. apter
I. Subchapter N. “Effluent Guidelines
and Standards.” When South Dakota
submitted its proposed program to EPA.
subchapter N bad not been incorporated
into the State program. However,
incorporation was approved at the July
28. 1993, public hearing of South
Dakota Water Management Board and
became effective on September 5, 1993.
A. Comments Regazding the
Pretreotinent Program
One commenter. a pretreatment
program manager, expressed concerns
and raised questions regarding the
clantyof the pzeueatrnent program
procedures and the level of resources
needed by the DENR to administer the
pretreatment program:
“1.1 feel DENR must elaborate and
develop a procedure for entering Into a
joint powers agreement with a
municipality in order for DENR to run
a municipal pretreatment program.
There is nothing In the submission that
indicates the extent to which DENR will
administer the program, especially If a
large municipality requests the
Department run their program.
2. Does DENR have the authority to
flatly refuse to adn inii ter a municipal
pretreatment program?
3. If DENR issues a SWO Permit to a
POTW and mandates the development
of a pretreatment program, can the
POTW in turn request the State to
administer the program? If so. what are
the procedures for requesting that D 4R
administer the program?
4. Assuming the State becomes
delegated, what Is the thneframe for
previously approved pretreatment
programs to submit notice to the DD R
that the POTW wishes to continue
administering the program?
5. I honestly feel that if ONE of the
larger POTW’s (sic) request that DENR
administer their pretreatment program.
along with all of the other emait w
POTW pretreatment responsibilities the
state will assume, the Department will
not have enough personnel to
adequately avlminister this program.”
A second commenter proposed that
the following be added to the
administrative rules:
“74:03:26—A POTW that intends to
discharge wastewater to a separate
POTW which is under a different
authority must submit a request for
approval to the Secretary at least 90
days prior to discharge. The Secretary
must evaluate the impact of industrial
user wastes on contributing POTW and
receiving PCIflPJ.
The Secretary may choose one of the
following options to protect both
P0TWs from significant industrial user
dh cha r ges:
(1) Require contributing jurisdiction
to establish a Pretreatment Program in
accordance to (sic) the requirements in
40 GR Part 403.8(a) and the State
provide direct oversight over program.
(2) State implement a POTW
Pretr tment Program In lieu of the
contributing jurisdictionas set forth in
40 R Part 403.8(0).
(3) Control all significant Industrial
users in the contributing jurisdiction
directly by conditions established in
74:03:26:03 to 74:03:26:14 and the State
of SD Pretreatment Program.”
B. EPNs Response to Comments
ARSD Section 7403:26:02 and
Section V of the Program Description
provide for development of a joint
powers agreement In cases where a
POTW required to develop a
pretreatment program has requested the
DDIR to assume pretreatment program
requirements. This request Is to be made
within 30 days of notification that the
State has been delegated the
pretreatment program or within 30 days
of the facility being notified that It Is
required to develop a pretreatment
program. In the latter case, this
notification would be made either at the
time of issuance of an NPDES permit
with such a requirement or the
conclusion of an enforcement action
imposing such a requirement.
EPA believes that any POTW can
request that the State assume
responsibility for a local pretreatment
program, subject to implementation of
an agreed-upon joint powers agreement.
It appears that the D 4R may refuse to
adm1?v4 ter a program only if no joint
powers agreement is developed within
forty-five days after notification of
intent by the POTW.
EPA agrees that the D JR should
provide more detailed Instructions to
POTWa regarding the joint powers
agreement process. This can be done at
the time the POTW requests the DDIR
to ad n4nI ter Its pretreatment program.
since the procedures may vary
somewhat depending on the extent and
content of local legal authorities and
procedures at each facility when the
request is received.
The D lR will be required upon
authorrzetion to supply whatever
resources are necessary to ensure that
all pretreatment program activities are
fully implemented and enforced. DENR
staff are knowledgeable about the
resources required to implement a
program. SDCL 34A—2—120 provides for
the DENR to collect annual fees from.
not only the POTW for which it
adminicters the pretreatment program
(335.000). but each pretreatment
industrial user ($600 plus up to 31.600
per process line for analytical testing).
These fees, plus any legislative
appropriations, would be the financial
basis for DENR ailvntnietering the
overall state pretreatment program and
individual programs with which it has
joint powers agreements.
Regarding the proposed rule changes.
EPA finds additional rules are not
needed to provide the Stale the
authority to require a POTW to develop
a pretreatment program or to request
that the DENR administer the program
in lieu of the POTW. The State is not
required to offer POTWs the option to
develop or have programs developed at
POTWs which do not meet the onteria
contained in 40 C’R 403.8(a), as seems
to be suggested by the second
commentor’s proposed rules.
Conclusion
The pretreatment program described
adequately meets the requirements of 40
CFR 403.10(0. The Program Description
outlines the process for joint powers
agreements. EPA recognizes that the
specific steps for developing joint
powers agreements between the DENR
and an Individual POTW may vary
according to the situation at each
municipality. EPA will continue to play
a significant review and oversight role
in the development and Implementation
of joint powers agreements.
VI. Endangered Species Act
In our August 25, 1993 letter to the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS). EPA Initiated Informal
consultation under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) on EPA’s
proposal to authorize the DENR to
administer the NPDES Program under
section 402 of the Clean Water Act In
South Dakota. The FWS responded to
EPA on October 20, 1993. EPA
responded to that letter with a letter on
November19. 1993 describIng
permitting and variance procedures and
providing a biological assessment of the
impact of program authorization on
endangered and threatened species in
South Dakota delineated in the FWS
October 20th letter. The November 19th
letter also stated that EPA believed that
-------
1544
Federal Register / Vol . 59, No. 7 / Tuesday, January11, 1994 / Notices
the delegation would have no effect on
the listed spedea. Responding in its
November 30. 1993 letter to the EPA,
the FWS indicated that it could concur
with cur no adverse effect finding if
EPA agreed to four conditions.
EPA and DENR staff met with staff at
the FWS South Dakota Field Office in
Pierre to discuss the conditions. Based
on that meeung, the EPA and D 1R
agreed to these conditions, as follows.
FWS concurred on EPA ’s Finding of No
Adverse Affect on December 15,1993.
The MOA between EPA and South
Dakota on the administration of the
South Dakota NPDES program
addressed these conditions.
1. In each individual public notice or
variance, the State shall make an initial
determination of effect on all federally
listed endangered and threatened
species that may occur in the project
area of influence.
This information will be provided
to the Service as well as to the EPA with
sufficient time to review and, if
necessary. provide comments, as
reflected in the Memorandum of
Agreement signed between EPA and the
State of South Dakota.
• The State will communicate with
the Service, on a periodic basis, on the
permits that it will be Issuing. The
Service will work with the State to
identify those permits for which there
are species In the project area. -
2.11 it is determined by the State that
the individual permit or varianca to di
permit provided to the Service may
adversely affect any federally listed and!
or proposed endangered and threatened
species. the State will work with the
Service to eliminate the adverse affect.
3. If the Service does not concur with
the State’s “no affect” determination,
the State will work with the Service to
eliminate the adverse effect.
4. If any adverse effects cannot be
eliminated, the permit application or
variance will be held in abeyance and
the EPA, with their oversight
responsibilities, will require
consultation with the Service, after EPA
has completed the formal objection
process and the permit has reverted to
EPA for issuance.
A. Comments Concerning Information
Needed and the Consultation Process
One environmental organization
urged EPA to engage in formal
consultation with the FWS pursuant to
Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act. Another environmental group
questioned whether EPA had complied
with requirements to consult with the
FWS and with the State Came, Fish, and
Parks Department.
B. EPA’s Response to Comments
The EPA successfully completed
informal consultation with the U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service, as described above.
Therefore, there was no need to engage
in the formal consultation process.
VI I. Overall Delegation Issues
EPA received a number of public
comments regarding the overalL
capability and intent of the D JR to
administer an authorized NPDES
program.
A. Comments Regarding the Benefits of
Delegation
1. Many commenters praised the
capabilities, competency, knowledge,
and past performance of the DENR staff.
we have relied on the South
Dakota Department of Environment and
Natural resources as a resource for
questions and concerns we have had
with the NPDES program. We have
found the DENR to be staffed by a group
of well.informed professionals
dedicated to the enhancement of water
quality. Their guidance and advice have
always been valuable •
“The DENR has established itself as a
very competent department and has a
very positive working relationship with
a variety of industries within the state.
The DENR will be very effective in
administering and enforcing the NPDES
program for the State of South Dakota
• we haven’t always agreed with
DEI’R on our positions, but let messy
dearly we have always been treated
very fairly.” “To me, the State seems
very capable of making decisions and
taking action, while at the Federal level,
response does not occur with
promptness.”
“We are aware of the efforts the
Department made prior to and during
the 1992 State Legislative session to
secure funding needed to upgrade staff
capability to take over management of
the NPDES program.”
environmental regulations are
best administered at the state level.
State administration provides both the
permittee and the regulator better
opportunity for face to face
communication and for better
understanding of the specifics of an
operation through regular inspections.
Administration and enforcement are
both enhanced by having the regulators
in close proximity to the regulated
facilities.”
2. Numerous commenters emphasized
the advantages of regulation by an
agency actually in the State. Comments
included the following:
“EPA technical staff are normally
available by phone only, while state
staff are frequent visitors to the area a
are available for valuable on-site
assistance • . Our experience in
working with (a delegated state
regarding other facilitiesl has been one
where positive environmental benefits
have been achieved in an efficient,
timely manner. We deal directly and in
person with all the regulatory people
involved, which drastically reduces the
questions of interpretation, improves’
timeliness of permit compliance and in
the end provides quicker, effective
solutions to environmental problems.”
“I believe that delegation of the
NPDES program for regulating the
discharges of pollutants into waters
within the State will mean a more
effective operation on both a
programmatic and cost basis.”
“We are as concerned for the
environment of our employees as much
as anyone else is, but we have a desire
for cooperation rather than dictation.”
“I believe a program administered by
the state of South Dakota. with regional
offices in efforts to help industry clean
up our environment, should we be
polluting it, would be a tremendous
benefit to all manufacturers.”
“Having the answers in state and
accountable to South Dakotans will
enhance businesses’ ability to comply.
“(The State Feedlot Program
Regulation Raviewl • . Committee
concluded that State management of the
NPDES program was needed to
accomplish effectlvq regulation of
feedlot wastes In South Dakota.”
“The National Performance Review
recently cited recommendations to
create a system of program delivery that
works better and costs less, The very
first recommendation (EPAOI)
specifically states: ‘Improve
Environmental Protection Through
Increased Flexibility for Local
Government’. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency has a
real opportunity today to act on this
recommendation by approving South -
Dakota’s applicatloni”
“There are several reasons why the
Legislature supported this (Second
Century Environmental Protection I Act:
—State administration of the federal
program would enhance economic
development:
—Improved coordination would exist
between local and state governmental
agencies; and
—The state would better safeguard the
public health, safety, welfare and the
environment of this state through a
customer service approach.”
B. Comments Opposing Authorization
A number of commentate Identified
problems associated with delegation.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 59. No. 7 / Tuesday , January 11. 1994 / Notices
‘un public participation issues and
ther areas:
“If (program authorization) weis to
happen. South Dakota citizens, although
they might not know it, would be
without protection.”
“DENR’s activities last year
demonstrate dearly the agency’s
tendency toward advocacy for, rather
than regulation of. the entities it Is. by
law, required to oversee • . (This
group) seeks denial of state delegation
until the philosophy of DENR changes
from that of advocate for the regulated
community to one of regulator.” An
environmental group aiticized the
state’s comniitznent to enforcement An
environmental group requested that
EPA require monitoring data to be
submitted and housed at DENR. They
also suggested that Issued and denied
permits require equivalent levels of
clearances.
C. EPA’s Response to Comments on
Overall Authorization Issues
EPA noted and considered all public
comments considering the overall
advantages and disadvantages of
approving the NPDES program
administration by the State of South
kota.
.vlaziy of the comments reflected the
advantage of State program approval
which the Clean Water Act envisioned:
the program can be administered more
effectively closer to the regulated
community when the agency and its
staff are competent and committed to
protecting the environment and public
health.
Resources to be used meet the
minimum requirements of the NPDES
program as it now exists. The State
would be responsible for devoting the
resources needed to maintain this
program and implement additional
requirements, as they occur.
EPA’s responses to public
participation issues are found under the
sections on “Unsigned Complaints” and
“Citizen Intervention”.
EPA typically does not require
submission of monitoring data other
than discharge monitoring reports
(DMRs) when It administers the NPDES
program in a state. Therefore, it does not
require an approved state to do so.
ft appears that there are equivalent
levels of clearance for permit Issuance
and denial. In both cases, the Seaetary
makes that decision. This is noted in the
flow chart on page 9 of the Program
Desalptlon.
Conclusion
The State of South Dakota has
demonstrated that it adequately meets
the requirements for program
1545
authorization as defined in the Clean
Water Act, 40 C2’R part 123, and 40 0’R
part 403. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service concurred with the EPA “no
adverse affect” determination regarding
program authorization. The State
Historic Preservation Office concurred
with the EPA “no effect” detegnination.
This authorization does not include the
sludge management program.
At this time. EPA is withholding
authorization to administer the NPDES
program on Indian Country located
within South Dakota. including lands
for which there Is significant
controversy over whether or not the
land is Indian Country.
Federal Register Notice of Approval of
State NPDES Programs or Modifications
EPA must provide Federal Register
notice of any action by the Agency
approving or modifying a State NPDES
program. The following table will
provide the public with an up-to.date
list of the status of NPDES permitting
authority throughout the country.
Today’s Federal Register notice is to
announce the approval of South
Dakota’s authority to atbninlster the
NPDES permit program. including
regulation of federal facilities and
issuance of general permits and to
atbt intcter the pretreatment program.
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS
Alabama —
M i an -.
California
od
wc .
pre eavneot
owam
.
nwa pro-
gram
Delaware.,
Georgia —
Hawas —
llIiflO i a
In asia —
lawa_
Kentucky
Uchigan
MIIV i aSOIa
M ississçç,
Nebreslia —
Nevade
101 19/79
11/01188
0914/73
03(27/75
04/01/74
06128/74
I 1 /28/74
10123177
01101175
0910178
06/28/74
09130183
06105(74
10117/73
06130/74
05 101/74
10130174
06110174
06112174
09119175
04/13/82
10P28 1 75
10119175
0913/75
03111/74
06130/78
89/17 184
08110175
10119/79
11101186
05105178
01/09189
12/08180
06101179
12 / 06179
09110178
08P28l85
09130183
11110187
12 / 09178
12/09/78
01/29/83
06136178
06133181
11 Th
08 /31/78
04113182
0913180
01 / /90
01128183
06/30/78
0911 7l84
New York
North C
intl Dakota -
tilo.
Oregon ——
-
Rhode Island -
South Carotsia
10119179
11101/86
06103181
03/12/81
08112/83
06103181
09/30183
0930185
04119185
07119179
05113182
0903181
09107184
04113182
06114182
07127183
03112181
09/17/84
06/25/91
11101186
03 1 04183
03110192
10/23192
01129191
09/30 1 81
01104184
04/02191
08113192
11124/93
09/30/83
O9/3M1
11129193
12/15(87
09/27181
12112185
04 / 29/83
07/20189
07127192
04113182
10119192
01 I9o
09/17/82
09/03181
09117/84
09 / 03/92
-------
1546
Federal Register / VoL. 59, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 1994 I Notices
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS—COntiflued
Ap roved
NPOES per-
mo program
App edte
eralfaciUbes
A ed
preveasnent
program
nita pro-
gram
South Dairota
Tennessee .._ ...
12/30193
12128(77
07107181
02111(74
06130/76
03131175
11114173
06110/82
02/04/74
01/30175
40
12130/93
09130188
07/07/87
... —
.______
02109/82
—
06110/82
11126/79
06118/81
35
12/30193
08110193
07107(81
03116/82
.______
04/14/89
09130186
06110/82
12/24/80
._______
28
12/30/93
04118/91
07/07187
08126/93
....
05120191
09126189
05/10182
12/19(88
09/24/91
39
Utah .____._ __.. __
Vermont..
Virgin lslwith
Virgima . .
WasNngton .. .
West Vi,glrea ....._ —
Wlsconsui. .. - .
Wyoimng. —— ....——_—
Totals.
Number of Fully Authorized Programs
(Federal Facilities, Pretreatment,
General Perrnits)=26
Review Under Regulatory Flexibility
Act and Executive Order 12886
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis for all niles that
may have a significant impact one
substantial number of entities. The
proposed approval of the South Dakota
NPDES program does not alter the
regulatory control over any Industrial
category. No new substantive
requirements are established by this
action. Therefore, because this notice
does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities, a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis La not
needed.
On October 12. 1993, the Office of
Management and Budget exempted this
Agency action from the requirranents of
Executive Order 12888.
Dated: December 30, 1993.
Jack W. Metraw.
Acting Regi orioi Admlnistretoz
EnvfronmanalP - .4 ,.MonAgency Region
(FR Dec. 94-493 FIled 1-1044; &45 em)
unisis oe isis m l
__a — I
COMMS S ION
Public Information Collection
Requirement Submitted to Office of
Management and Budget for RevlG
January 5.1994.
The Federal Communications
Commission has submitted the
following Information collection
requirement to 0MB for review and
clearance under the Papeiwork
Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3507).
Copies of this submission may be
purchased from the Commission’s copy
contractor, International Transaiptlon
Service, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., suite
140, Washington. DC 20037, (202) 857—
3800. For further information on this
suI mission contact Judy Boley, Federal
Communications Commission, (202)
632—0276. Persons wishing to comment
on this information collection should
contact Timothy Fain, Office of
Management and Budget, room 3233
NEOB, Washington. DC 20503. (202)
395—3561.
0MB Number 3060-0093.
Title: Application far Renewal of
Radio Station License in Specified
Services.
Form Nuntbei’- FCC Form 405.
Action: Revision of a currently
approved collection.
Respondents: Businesses or other for-
profit (including small businesses).
Frequency of Response: Annually and
every decode.
Estimated Annual Burden: 540
respon 2.25 hours average burden
per response; 1.215 hours total annual
burden.
Needs and Uses: FCC Form 405 is
used by all common carriers end
Multi point Distribution Service non-
t ’n’non carriers to apply for renewal of
radio station licenses. Section 307(c) of
the Communications Act of 1934 limits
the terms of common carrier radio
llc”n ” e to ten years and requires that
written applications be submitted for
renewal. Applicants granted
developmental and special temporary
authority are required to apply for
renewal In shorter intervals—usually
one year after date of grant and annually
thereafter. FCC Form 405 has been
revised to Incorporate a certification
required by the Commiccions rules
Implementing the provisions of Section
5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of
1988. LIcensing Branches evaluate the
Information submitted: review the
particulars and conditions of the current
authorization: and take action to renew.
the license for a new term. If the
information were not submitted, the
Commission would not be able to carry
out its responsibilities mandated by the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
(PR D cc. 94—593 FlIed 1—10-03:8:45 em)
ULLisS 0001 i$4i-O
flepov t No 1 19941
Petition for Reconsideration of Action
In Rulemaking Proceeding
January 4. 1994.
Petition for reconsideration has been
filed In the Commission rulemaking
proceeding listed in this Public Notice
- and published pursuant to 47 C R
1.429(e). The full text of this document
Is available for viewing and copying in
room 239.1919 M Street. NW.,
Washington, DC or may be purchased
from the Commlssion s copy contractor
iTS. Inc. (202) 857—3800. Opposition to
this petition must be filed January 28.
1994. See § 1.4(b)(1) of the
Comm 4on’s rules (47 ( R l.4(b)(1)J.
Replies to an opposition must be flied
withIn 10 days after the time for filing
oppositions has expired.
SUBJECT Amendment of § 73.606(b)
Table of Allotments. TV Broadcast
Stations (Rldgeaest. California) (MM
Docket No 92-246 RM-809 1).
Petition for Reconsideration
Number of Petitions Filed: 1.
Federal Communications Commission.
La Vera Marshall,
Acting Seawtasy.
IFR Dec. 94—592 PlIed 1—10—94: 8:45 am)
numa CCCI si12-S -M
-------
Federal Register / VoL 59, No. I / Monday, January 3, 1994 / Notices
87
submitted comments to the - = . The
IPCB has indicated that It will Issue
revised regulations I a December 1993.
The USDA will continue Its review
when It receives the revised regulations.
Along with the tentative
determination, the USDA announced
the availability of the application for
public comment and the date of a public
hearing on the application. The public
hearing was held at the USU A Region
S office in Chicago, illinois, on
November 29, 1993.
The USEPA received public comment
concerning the tentative determination
of full program adequacy for flhlnols’
MSWLF permit program. One
commenter asked whether the
regulatory flexibility found In 40 R
258.50(b) would be utilized by the State.
In the application. Illinois indicated that
the Illinois rules do not provide for
suspension of groundwater monitoring
requirements by the Agency. However.
an operator may petition the for an
adjusted standard from the regulations
of general applicability. In granting an
adjusted standard from groundwater
monitoring requirements, the CB may
consider contRm4n In, fate. and
transport requirements, as well as other
factors deemed relevant. An adjusted
standard must be justified end
consistent with applicable Federal law,
and it cannot result in environmental or
health effects significantly more adverse
than those considered by the CB In
general rulemaking.
C. Decision
After reviewing the public comment,
I conclude that Illinois’ application for
adequacy determination meets all of the
statutory and regulatory requirements
established by RCRA. Accordingly,
Illinois is granted a determination of
adequacy for all portions of its
municipal solid waste permit program.
Section 4005 (a) of RCRA provides that
may use the citizen suit
provision of section 7002 of R A to
enforce the revised Federal Criteria
independent of any State/Tribal
enforcement program. As the USEPA
explained in the preamble to the revised
Federal Criteria, the USEPA expects that
any owner or operator complying with
provisions In a State/Tribal program
approved by the USEPA should be
considered to be In compliance with the
Federal Criteria. See 56 FR 50978, 50995
(October 9, 1991).
Today’s action takes effect on the date
of publication. The USEPA believes It
as good cause under sectIon 553(d) of
te AdnunlWatlve Procedures Act. 5
U.S.C. 553(d), to put this action into
effect less than 30 days after publication
In the Federal Register. All of the
requirements and obligations in the
State’s program are already in effect as
a matter of State law. The USEPA’s
action today does not Impose any new
requirements that the regulated
community must begin to comply with.
Nor do these requirements become
enforceable by the USEPA as Federal
law. Consequently, the USEPA finds
that It does not need to give notice prior
to m k4ng its approval effective.
Complbtnrn With Executive Order
12868
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this notice from the
requirements of section 6 of Executive
Order 12866.
Certification Under the Regulatory
Fle3dbility Act
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b), I hereby certify that this
approval will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. It does not
Impose any new burdens on small
entitles. This notice, therefore, does not
require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
Authortty This eotI Is Issued under the
authority of section 4005 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Ad as amended: 42 U.S.C. 6946.
Dated: De ber 20. 1993.
Valdus V. M ”
R.gioadAdosth
IFR Dec. 93—32062 Filed 12—3043; 8:45 aml
•imo coos
(FRL -4
State of Maryland’s Submission ole
Substantial Program Revision to Its
Authorlssd National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NYDES) Program
AOENCY Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA):
ACflON Correction.
SUMMARY: This document contains
corrections to the Maryland NPDESW
substantial program modification
published Wednesday, November 10.
1993. (58 FR $9724). On page 59725, in
the first column under DATES, third
line, the date for providing comments
and/or requests for public hearing
published In the Federal Register was
December 3, 1993. In order to provide
for ample opportunity to comment, the
date for providing comments and/or
requests for public hearing is corrected
to read “thIrty days from the date of this
notice.’ EPA will continue to accept
public comment and requests for public
hearing for thIrty days from the date of
this notice.
DATES: Comments and/or requests for
public hearings must be received by
February 2, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
addressed to Denise Hakowskl. U.S.
EPA, Region Ill. 3WM55, 841 Chestaut
Street. Philadelphia. Pennsylvania
19107.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTAC
Denise Makoweki at (215) 597—8242.
Dated: Desamber 21.1993.
Stanley I .. askowakl,
AetüigRegionalAdntin i sbutor.
Envuonmeiital Protection Agency. Region ill.
(FR Dcc. 93—32033 Filed 12—30-93; 8:45 aml
aes coos uso m
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
lose. Doelu.t No. 59-673; DA 93-19301
Private Land Mobile Radio Services;
Philadelphia Metropolitan Area Public
Safety Plan Amendment
AODICY: Federal Communications
Commigton.
ACTION: NotIce.
SUMMARY: The Chief, Land Mobile and
Miorowave Division and the Acting
Chief, Spectrum Engineering Division
released this Order amending the Public
Safety Radio Plan for the Philadelphia
Metropolitan Area (Region 28). As a
result of accepting the amendment for
the Plan for Region 28, the Interests of
the eligible entities within the region
will be Furthered.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 27. 1993.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Betty Woolford. Private Radio Bureau,
Policy and Planning Branch. (202) 632—
6497.
SUPPtEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Adopted: December 16. 1993.
Released: December 27. 1993.
By the C1lef Land Mobile and Mi owave
Division and the Acting Dilef. Spectrum
EagIm5TtOg DivisIon:
1. The Private Radio Bureau and the
Office of Engineering and Technology.
acting under delegated authority,
accepted the Philadelphia Metropolitan
Area (Region 281 Public Safety Flan
(Plan) on February 2, 1990, 5 FCC Rcd
3067 (1990).
2. By letter dated June 28. 1993. the
Region proposed to amend its Plan. The
proposed amendment would revise the
current channel allotments. Toe
Commission placed the letter n Public
Notice for comments due on August 27,
1993, 58 FR 40818 Uuly 30. 1993). The
-------
1995
-------
Part II
EnvirOnmentaL:
Protection Agency..
40 CFR Part122,etaL. . .“‘ . -.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit Appilcation Requirements
for Publicly. Owned Treatment Work3 and
Other Treatment WOrkS.Treatlng, Domestic
Sewage; Proposed RuIe
Wednesday
December 6, 1995
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY -
40 C R Parts i , 123,403, and 601
Nat!on Pollutent Olsdtar -
Elimination System Pannit Application
Re iIremetts for Publicly Owned
TeeatinentWorke and Other Treatment
Waste Treating Domestic Seweg - -
AG dCY: Env rcnmentcl Protection
Ager. 7.
ACrO% Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection
gmicy (EPA) today proposes to amend
pe mi application requirements and
application forms for publicly owned
• treatment works (POTWs) and other
treatment works treating domestic
sewage (TWTDS). 1WTDS include
• facilities that generate sewage sludge.
provide commercial treatment of sewage
sludge, manufacture a product derived
• from sewage sludge, or provide disposal
of sewage sludge. Today ’a notice solicits
public r mments on the proposed
regulations. proposed forms and
-
The proposed regulations and Form
2A would replace existing Stand rd
• Form A and Short Form A to account for
changes in the NPDES program since
thOfor rnswerelssuedlnl973.This
proposal would co” ulidate POTW
application requirements. Including
Information i egardthg toxics
monitoring. whole efflue4t toxicity
(WET) testing. pretreatment facility and
hazardous waste contributions. and
• combined sower overflows (CSOs). The
most significant proposed revisions
would require toxic and WET
monitoring by major and prefreatment
POTWe and monitoring of 17 .
parameters by minor POTWs. EPA
believes this Information is needed in
order for permitting authorities to issue
permits that will adequately protect the
• Nation’s water resources.
• The proposed regulations and Form
2$ would replace the t1ng Interim
Sewage Sludge farm; The most
signlflcant proposed revision would
require POP/Is and other 1WI ’DS to
analyse sludge and provide data for ten
metals, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Class
I sludge management facilities
(pretreatment P(Yl ’Ws) would also have
to analyse for most of the priority
pollutants. The Interim Form only
requires the use of existing data. EPA
believes the additional information is
needed In order for permitting -
authorities to Issue permits that meet
the requirements of the sewage sludge
use or disposal regulations.
The costs associated with the new
requirements are not significant since
many permitting authorities require
essentially the same information alread y
through a variety of reporting • -
merl nItme - The proposed rule allows
waivers where Information Is already
available to the permitting authority.
The new forms would make It easier far
penrot applicants to provide the
necessary Information with their - -
applications and wouH minimize the
need for additional foliow.up -
information requests from permitting
authorities. The proposal Is estimated to
reduce the current annual reporting and
racwd keeping burden by about 9,000
hours, or ten percent. EPA is interested
in Identifying additional ways to further
reduce the burden associated with the
applications and is seeking comment on
the use of electronic data transmission
and other streamlining opportunities.
DATES: In order to be considered, -
comments must be received on or before•
March 5, 1998.
aoop ’s s Comments should be .
addressed to Municipal and Sludge
Application Rule Comment Clerk. Water
Docket MC—4 101; United States
Environmental Protection Agency. 401
M Street SW., Washington. DC, 20460.
Commenters are also requested to
• submit an original and 3 copIes of their -.
written comments as well as an original
and 3 copies of any attachments, -. -.
enclosures. or other documents —
referenced In the comments. • • —
Commenters who want receipt of their : -
-comments acknowledged should
include a self-addressed, stamped
envelope. All comments must be
-postmarked or delivered by hand by
March 5, 1998. No facsimiles (faxes)
wilibeaccapted. --
EPA will also accept comments -
electronically. Comments should be.
- addressed to the following Internet
address: ow -docket0lepamail.epa.gov. -
Electronic comments must be submitted -
asanASC l lfl leavoid lngtheuseof
special characters and any form of • t--
encryption. Electronic comnienti will be
transferred into a paper version for the
official record. EPA will attempt to
clarify electronic comments if there Is
an apparent error in trnnsmission. -
Comments provided electronically will
be considered timely if they are -
submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m.
(Eastern time) March 5, 1998. EPA Is
experimenting with electronic -
commenting, therefore cominonters may
want to submit both electronic - -
comments and duplicate paper
comments. This document has also been
placed on the Internet for public review
€2548 Fedarul Register I Vol 60, No. 234 / Wednesday. December 6, 1995 I Proposed
- and downloading at the
._ location: gopher.epa.gov ,
FOR FURThER INFORManoj
information on Form 2A and _____
wastewater permitting issues
notice, contact George Utting, (
260—9530, PermIts Dlv1sio (4203)
- United States Envirunmqn j p yj
%gency, 401 M Street S.W., Wanh1 oi
D.C., 20460. • - •
For information on Form 2$ ad
sewage sludge permitting lisues Ln -
notice, contact Wendy Bell, (202) 260 ..
9534, PermIts Division (4203), Unlted
States Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M Street S•W., Was)thjg
D.C., 20460. :-
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMAflON:
LBack round
A. Purpose of Today’s Proposal •-.
B. History of the NPDES Permit Progra
1. National Pollutant Discharge .
Ellmlnation System -• •• •
a Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 - - -
b. Oiacges Leading to the Clean Water Act
of 1977
C. Permzt Consolidation and -. 4
Deconsolidatlon -
d. The Water Quality Act of 1987 and .
Water Quality-Based Permitting . • -
2. Background of the Pretreatment Prog am
3. Program to Control Combined Sewer - .
Overflows
C Sewage Sludge Program Backgrouiu4
1. Statutory Requirements for Sewagi
• Sludge
2.Sewage Sludge Permit Program
- Regulations -
3. Part 503 TechnIcal Standards
4. Implementation of Part 503 TechnIcal
Standards
5. InterIm Sewage Sludge Application
Form
a NPDES Watershed Strategy
5. PermIt Writer’s Information Needs
Related to Endangered Species and
Historic Properties
F. Permit as a Shield
C. Pollutant Data from PO ’rNs
-; H. Public Consultation in the Development
• of Today’s Proposal -
- IL Approach Taken in Today’s Notice
A. Scope of Today’s Rul .mi ktng
B..The Agency Proposes to Revise the
Definition of POTW and Existing Permit
Application Requirements for POTW. -,
C EPA Proposes Form 2A for P01W. to
Replace Standard Form A and Short
Form A
a Applicability of Form 2A to Privately
Owned and Federally Owned Treatment -
Works •
• • B. EPA Proposes Revised Appllcatloa ‘....
‘ Requirements and Form 2S for Sewage
Sludge Permits
P. Reasons for Separate Form 2A and Form
2$
C. EPA Solicits Comment on the Use of
Electronic Application Forms
I lL Desalptlon of Proposed Requirements
A. EPA Proposes to Revise Requirement
§ 122.21(c). (d). and (0 ConcernIng the
Us. of Forms 1, 2A. and 2$
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules 62547 .
gequlrementto SU Form 2A POT Wa has changed 1fficantly since on a nationwide basis. It Is calculated
to Submit Form 2S that time, specifically in the areas of• that this proposal would apply to more
B App 1 I°’ RecUIrsm fOr POTWS toxics control, water qyality.based . than 7.000 permIt applications per year.
‘40 CPR 122.210)) permItting and pretreatorent programs. with a total universe per year or more
asic Application Information Se md. the proposal would consolidate than three thousand applicants each for
ln(orfl1 5t100 on Effluent DIscharges application reqmzernents from existing. municipal and sludge permitting. Costs
rnuent MonitO 1Dg for Specific
parameters - ... regulations Into a “modular” permit ‘vary considerably from application to
pollutant o Re remento application form, thereby streemlining . application. Thus, the average five-year
and clarifying the process for permit -: cost per application would range from..
g pa ting of Additional Pollutanta for applicants. Third, these revisions will . an average of about $450 (less than 3100
. Effl provide permit writers with the •.. per year) for iu fl municipalities to an
uset information necessary to lop average of about $4,000 Uess than
Discharges. a ent , arui appropriate NPDES permits consistent $1,000 per year) for larger
. with requirements o the Clean Water . municipalities. Most of the costs
6. DIsch mIiassz ous w . - Act and thus also help to ensure for . - associated with this proposal would be
perndttees the effectiveness of the ... due to proposed pollutant data
. 5 oad Sewer Overflows . . permit as a shield for purposes of - requirements for municipal pennittees.
co ” with the CWA. Fourth, the . Th A en v believes that the
. gtJftcatIon - .. . - Agency seeks to reduce redundant . proposes! Incleased costs are
c. Application Requirements for TW DS reporting by allowing waivers where
to CFR 122.21(q)) ln ormadon is already available to the appropriate because certain data may be
ne nsey to the permit writer In order
Facility Information . - ‘ permitting authority and, further, to to allow the Issuance of permits that
2. AppliCant Information . . provide a platform for data. r provide a “shield” to permittees (see
3. Permit Information . t rflh1 tfll 5 5j , discussion, ‘ Permit as a Shield,” at I.F.),
4. Federal Indian Reservations: j. .... ii fl revisions would result and to ensure compliance with Clean
5. TopographiC Map -
6. Sewage 1 (fl fl in a net reduction in overall reporting
i. sewage Sludge Quality .. burden hours nationwide. The burden Water Act requirements, especially
a. Class I Sludge Management p j • reduction for the combined municipal ‘ ‘ 5• fl _ 5• S
C.
S.
b. ii iw•rns . . and sludge proposed application - 0 8. Histoiy of the NPDES Permit Program
8. Requirements for a Person Who Prepares requirements is calculated to.be nearly
Sewage Sludge 9,000 hours annually, a 1. National Pollutant.Dlscharge
9. Land Application of Bulk $ewag. Sludge. existing annual burden of 80,000 IiOUIS. imu1 nUon System, ..
io. Surface Disposal . - . This Is due in part to the reduced ‘: a. Federal Water Pollution Conirol Act
ii. Inaneratlon number of WET tests calculated tobe . Amendments otiaiZ . ‘.
12 sdl 7al In a Munmipal Solid Waste - performed by POTWs. It is also due to
13. Contractors . . the reduced.number of major - The Clean WaterA ct (CWA) was
14. Other Information . . respondents that would be required to enacted in 1972 (Federal Water
is. Signature . . comply with the proposed regulations Pollution Control Act Amendments of
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act ‘‘ as compared to the number of major ., 1972) to restore and maintain the
V. Executive Order 12866 -. .. respondents estimated to complete the . chemical. physical. and biological -
VI. Executive Order 12875 existing municipal application f ) 5 Integrity of the Nation’s waters. CWA
V II. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Le., different criteria apply). Finally. - sec. 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). The
and Consultation with State. Local, and the respondent burden for cwA . 308 1m iii ate predecessor to the CWA was
Tribal Governments . application requests also would be the Water Quality Act of 1965 (Pub. L.
VIlI. Regulatory Flexibility Act ed to decrease, because much of 89—234). The 1965 Act directed each
I. Background . . the information currently obtained State to develop water quality standards
A. Purpose of Today ’s oposal ..: through routine and meaiurn . 308 for all interstate navigable waters. States
requests is reflected in the proposed had difficulty developing these
Today’s notice proposes to emend .. rule. standards, however, and by 1971 barely
NPDES permit application regulations This burden reduction accounts for .. half the States had developed complete
for publicly owned treatment works nearly 9,000 of the 287,000 hours programs. States that did aevelop
(POTWs) and other treatment works . projected to be saved, for an overall standards had difficulty lm lementing
treating domestic sewage (TWTDS). - .. reduction of twenty- five percent for the them because the 1965 Act lacked a
Proposed Form ZA would apply to . NPDES program. The total savings will workable merhiiniein for translating
POTWs and replace Standard Form A be achieved through revisions to this .. State water quality standards into limits
and Short Form A, which were . form, revisions to stormwater - . - enforceable against individual
developed in 1973. Proposed Form ZS apolication forms, revisions to the - dischargers. . -
would be used to report sewage sludge Industrial application form 2C, and In response to this dilemma. Congress
information consistent with apolicable reductions In discharge monitoring . passed the CWA. Section 402 directed
permit program regulations and ‘.. reports (DMRs). It is anticipated. - - EPA to assume a substantial role In
technical standards for sewage sludge however, that most of the NPDES directing and defining the nation’s
use or disposal. Proposed Form 2S .. burden reduction will involve reduced water pollutIon control programs. The
would be used by POTWs and other . burden for DMRs. which currently Act established the National Pollutant
TWTDS. . account for greater than eighteen . Discharge Flimin itlon System (NPDES)
EPA proposes these application million annual burden hours. permit program to be a&4niin’atered by
regulations and forms for several . At the same time, this proposed rule EPA and the States with EPA approval.
reasons. First, this rulamz .klng addresses would result in increased net costs to The NPDES program prohibits the
changes to the NPDES program since municipal and sludge applicants of discharge of any pollutant into waters of
1973. The NPDES program applicable to more than four million dollars per year the United States except when
-------
62548 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 I Wednesday, December 6, 1995 I Proposed Rules
authorized by a permit (sec. 301(a) and
402).
Section 301 sIgnificantly changed the
methods used to set and enforce
standards to abate and control water
pollution. First. It Introduced the
concept of m4n4mum technology-based
discharge requirements. Initlallj,, sac.
301(blllUB) required POTWs to achieve
effluent limitations based on secondazy
treatment The “degree of effluent
reduction achievable through
application of secondary treatment” was
to be defined by the Administrator.
pursuant to sac. 304(dRl). Later, POTWs
were to achieve a more stringent level
of technology-based discharge limits
based an best practicable waste
treatment technology (BP.WTT) under
sec. 30 1(b)(2)(B). That section was
repealed in 1981. Finally, POTWs were
required to comply with any more
stringent limitations necessary to
Implement any applicable State water
quality standards. Water quality-based
dkritArge limitations were imposed by
sac. 301(b)(l)(C).
To achieve the effluent reductions
called for in sec. 301. sec. 402 provides
for the NPDES permit program to
implement and enforce these controls.
NPDES permits may be issued on the
condition that authorized discharges
meet the applicable requirements of the
CWA. including: technology-based
limitations; water quality-based
limitations; new source performance
standards; toxic and pretreatment
effluent standards: inspection and
monitoring provisions; and ocean -
discharge cntena. EPA was authorized
to issue regulations to implement these
provisions throughout the CWA. NPDES
permit requirements are based either on
regulations promulgated under these
sections or, in the absence of
regulations, on the permit writer’s best
professional judgment (BPD, when
necessary to carry out the provisions of
the CWA. CWA sec. 402(a)(1), 33 U.S.C.
1342(a)(1). The CWA also authorized
States to assume responsibility for
Issuing NPDES permits, provided that
State programs meet the requirements of
sec. 402(b) and regulations published
under sac. 304(i)(2) (previously, sec.
304(h)(2)). EPA promulgated the
original regulations outlining the
NPDES program on December 22, 1972
(37 FR 28390) and May 22, 1973 (38 FR
13528).
The CWA required the Administrator
to promulgate guidelines for
“establishing uniform application forms
and other minimum requirements for
the acquisition of Information” from
point sources, wIthin 60 days after its
ena ent. CWA sec. 304(1)11)
(previously, sec. 304(h)(1)). EPA
promulgated short forms to enable
dlscbargers to meet deadlines Imposed
by the CWA. on February 27, 1973 (38
FR 5279). These included Short Form A,
which was to be completed by all
POTWe. EPA promulgated standard
forms to gather additional Information
from certain dlschargers, on July 24,
1973 (38 FR 19894). This rule included
Standard Form A, for POTWs meeting
certain a’iteria relating to size,
population, and industrial
contributions. At the time, there were
no effluent standards for POTWs.
Secondary treatment regulations, setting
limits for biochemical oxygen demand.
suspended solids, focal coliform, and
pH. were not promulgated until August
17. 1973 (38 FR 22298).
b. Changes leading to the Clean Water
Act of 1977
The first major change in the NPDES
program’s focus was the shift from
conventional to toxic pollutants.
Though sec. 307(a) requIred EPA to
identify and establish effluent standards
for toxic pollutants, the thrust of the
“first round” of NPDES permits was to
control conventional pollutants, rather
than to identify and establish standards
for toxic pollutants. As the NPDES
program was implemented, severaL
interested parties criticized the
Agency’s lack of progress in establishing
sec. 307(a) standards. Among the terms
in settlement of litigation in 1976, EPA
was to establish technology-based
standards as necessary to address 65
compounds or classes of compounds for
certain industries. See NRDC v. EPA. 8
E.R.C. 2120 (D.D.C. 1976). This list of 65
compounds is now contained in 40 R
401.15.
In 1977. amendments to the Clean
Water Act refocused Agency priorities
on the control of toxic pollutants. As a
result, the NPDES program expanded
beyond control of conventional
pollutants to control of nonconventlonal
pollutants, such as ammonia, chlorine,
and nitrogen, as well as certain metals
and organic chemicals. The list of the 65
compounds was Incorporated Into saC.
307 when the CWA was amended In
1977 (see Committee Print Number 95—
32. Hearings before the Subcommittee
on Investigations and Review of the
Committee on Public Works and
Transportation. U.S. House of
Representatives, pages 399—405) and
subsequently was published on January
31, 1978 (43 FR 4109). The compounds
on the list were chosen according to
various criteria, including known
occurrence in point source effluents and
substantial evidence of carcinogenicity
In studies of humans or animal systems.
Because the list included broad
categories or classes of chemicals
chlorinated benzenes, DOT
metabolltes, haloethers, etc
restructured the list In order to ev
and control the specific pollutant
greatest concern. This produced a
129 IndIvidual high priority toxic
pollutants. As Information becarn
available regarding the toxic effec
chemicals on the list, the Agency
amended the regulations to establ
current list of 126 “priority pollut.
See 40 R Part 43, Appendix A.
1977 amendments also amended s
402(bl(8)&(9) to require that appro
State NPDES programs provide for
administration of the pretreatment
program to regulate industrial user
POTWa.
In 1979. EPA extensively revisec
NPOES regulations to implement
changes in the CWA. to conform to
recent court decisions, and to clarif
and improve existing procedures. T
1979 regulatory revisions eliminate
duplication of substantive and
procedural requirements between t.
existing State and Federal NPDES
program regulations. Under the rrnz
regulations, promulgated on June 7.
1979 (44 FR 32854). the basic
substantive and procedural
requirements applicable to all’ ‘E
permits were set out in Parts 1 .c
124. Part 123 established State Nt’DE
permit program requirements. EPA
believed that this new regulatory
structure would simplify the regulati
and avoid inconsistencies between S
and Federal programs. These regulat
were challenged judicially and, as
discussed below, petitions for revie s
were merged with and resolved in
litigation challenging the consolidate
permit regulations and subsequent
rulemakings.
c. Permit Consolidation and
Deconsolidatlon
To simplify permitting programs, E
published regulations on May 19. 198.
(45 FR 33290), to consolidate the
requirements and procechires for five
the permit programs administered by
the Agency: the NPDES program. the
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
program under the Safe Drinking Wate
Act (SDWA), State “dredge or fill”
programs under sec. 404 of the CWA,
the Hazardous Waste Management
(HWIvI) program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA
and the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program und*’ - - ,
Clean AirAct. The Agency belie%
would be efficient to consolidate
environmental permitting programs
wherever feasible. This effort sought to
-------
amber 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules 62549
eli1m nate gaps and overlaps and ensure
consistency among the programs.
At the same time, EPA revised ceitain
of the permit application regulations.
The Agency created three new
application forms: Form 1,.Form 2B.
and Form 2C. Form I requires general
information about permit applicants and
was required to be completed by
applicants for each of the five types of
permits under the consolidated permit
rule. Form 28 is specific to part of the
NPDES program, specifically, permit
applications for concentrated animal
feeding operations and aquatic animal
production dlschargers. Form 2C, also
specific to the NPDES program, applies
to manufacturing, commercial, mining.
and silvlcultural operations. All three
forms incorporated EPA’s emphasis on
toxic poUutants and other modifications
to the CWA and NPDES program
regulations.
Following promulgation of the
consolidated permit regulations,
interested parties complained that the
consolidated format made the
regulations unnecessarily difficult to
use. The division of responsibilities
among various entities at the State and
Federal levels resulted in additional
problems. In practice, consolidated
processing of multiple permits was raze
because the various permit programs
regulated different activities with
different standards and thus Imposed
different types of requirements on
permittees. Subsequent petitions for
judicial review of various aspects of the
consolidated permit regulations were
consolidated with pending petitions for
review of the June 7, 1979. final NPDES
regulations In the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit.
As part of an agreement to resolve that
litigation, and in response to problems
encountered by permit writers. EPA
deconsolidated the five permitting
programs onApril 1, 1983 (48 FR
14146). The NPDES regulations mnin
in Part 122 (substantive permit
requirements) and Pert 123 (State -
program requirements). Part 124
(common permitting procedures)
re” ” applicable to all of the
programs. On September 1. 1983 (48 FR
39811), EPA promulgated additional
revisions covering a number of Issues
affecting the rnnsolldated permit
econsol1datf on, the NPDES
program continued to use Forms 1,28.
and 2C. In 1984. EPA amended Form 2C
to Include toxic pollutant sampling and.
In 1988, promulgated two new NPDES
forms: Form 20. for use by new
manufacturing, commercial, mining and
silvicultural operations; and Form 2E,
Iischarge
for use by facilities that do n xI2. July
process wastewater (SI FR zr. however.
28. 1986). The Agency did Short
revise either Standard Form .“ 10 not
Form A. Thus, these two fonu’l of the
request information to refleci cIuding
CWA ’s current requirements. tOXiC
the emphasis on the control’
pollutants. .17 and
d. The Water Quality Act of 1’4
Water Quality-Based Permitti . , was
On February 4, 1987. the t iality Act
amended again by the Water’. The
(WQA) of 1987 (Pub. L. ioo— ’ns that
WQA included several provllI .
affect POTWs and other TW1 ii
Statutory amendments includø sludge.
requirements addressing sewi ’iinpalred
storm water, and water quaIII
streams. In response to the iuchnical
amendments, EPA published
revisions to amend the NPDL t 54 FR
regulations on January 4, igiwgulatrons
246). EPA promulgated final tuiugrams
for State sludge management As Pall
on May 2, 1989 (54 FR l87lflJttPrt. the
of the WQA implementation . tentIng
Agency published rules iniplutiges to
CWA sec. 304(1) and other cm ’. on June
surface water toxics regulatk’iii9
2, 1989 (54 FR 23868). 11th 1 tI ’ncy’S
rulemaking recognized the Aj1i alitY
commitment to protect water 4nflittiflg.
through water quality-based j, 4ed that
The 1987 amendments pro. Vater
States were to adopt numeric t’
quality criteria for the “priori 1
pollutants” listed pursuant fu
307(a)(1). if discharge of tho.q t axpected
pollutants could reasonably bnsa under
to interfere with a designated i4ates
State water quality -standards. uaever
were to adopt these criteria w(i’d new
they reviewed, revised, or adtliqueflt
water quality standards. Subs-that 43
review of all States indicated as
States had adopted the criteri. aver.
required. Fourteen States, hovn’ith the
were not fully In compliance itiber 22,
1987 amendments as of necenitigated
1992. On that date, EPA prom.Id$a for
chemical-specific numeric crn’iUPply
those States, as necessary, to i
with the CWA (57 FR 60848). ‘ ah ItS
On July 22. 1994, EPA pub) 1 policy (59
whole effluent toxicity (WET). ,ded (I) to
FR 37494). The policy is Intemi
promote uniform, nationwide .j
compliance with statutory and ” control
regulatory requirements for thnit ‘.,iiters
of WET, and (ii) to assist pemi lUefltL
In Implementing these mqut norienCB in
The policy reflects EPA’s exp quality-
implementing the 1989 water I 40 R
based permitting regulations ar.ivides for
122.44(d). The WET policy pinIc WET
evaluation of acute and chromrflt at the
water quality criterta attainmr
edge of the respective mixing zones:
review of all major disthargers for
reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to exceedance of WET water
quality criteria; consideration of
available WET testing data and other
information in evaluating whether a
discharger has reasonable potential to
cause-or contribute to exceedance of
WET criteria: imposition of effluent
limitations to control WET upon finding
reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to exceedance of WET
criteria: imposition of WET monitoring
conditions where appropriate for
dischargers that do not have effluent
limitations to control WET; schedules
for compliance with WET effluent
limitations; application of water quality
permitting regulations to apply without
regard to the pollutant(s) that may be
causing toxicity, including ammonia
and chlorine: and application of the
water quality-based permitting
regulations to all dischargers. including
POTWs.
2. Background of the Pretreatment
Program
Congress recognized that regulating
only those pollutant sources discharging
effluent directly Into the nation’s waters
would not achieve the CWA’s goal to
eliminate pollutant discharges.
Consequently, the CWA required EPA to
promulgate nationally applicable
pretreatment standards that restrict the
introduction of pollutants from
Industrial users of POTWs. also called
Indirect dlschargers.
EPA first issued pretreatment
standards on November 8, 1973 (38 FR
30982). Following the 1977 OVA
amendments, EPA revised those
regulations and Issued the “General
Pretreatment Regulations for Existing
and New Sources of Pollution,” on June
28, 1978 (43 FR 27736). The regulations
were revised again on January 28, 1981
(48 FR 9439). As amended, the
pretreatment regulations at 40 Ci ’R Part
403 require that “any POTW (or
combination of POTWs operated by the
same authority with design influent
flow rates greater than five million
gallons per day (mgd) and receiving
from industrial users pollutants that
pass through or Interfere with the
operation of the POTW” establish
pretreatment programs as part of its
NPDES permit In addition. POTWs
with design influent flow rates of less
than.. five mgd may be required to
develop pretreatment programs if non-
domestic wastes cause upsets, sludge
ccntiitnin tIon. or violations of NPDES
permit conditions or if their industrial
users are subject to national
pretreatment standards. EPA estimates
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday,
-------
02550 Federal Register / Vat, 60. No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 I Proposed Rules
that 1,500 treatment facilities are
required to admln.ter such
pretreatment programs.
The National Pretreatment Program’s
primary goal Is protection of POTWa
and the environment from the effects of
dlsrh vges into municipal sewerage
systems. This protection Is achieved
principally through regulating industrial
users that discharge toxic pollutants or
unusually large amounts of
conventional pollutants Into municipal
systems. The General Pretreatment
Regulations control pollutant discharges
into POTWs In several ways. First.
prohibited discharge standards apply to
all industrial and commercial
establishments connected to POTWs. 40
CFR 403.5. These standards include
general prohibitions against the
introduction of pollutants into POTW
that may pass through the POTWor
interfere with the operations of the
POTW, as well as specific prohibitions
relating to the introduction of pollutants
which have the potential to aeate
hazards for the POTW. such as heat,
explosivity, and corrosivity. Second,
categorical pretreatment standards
apply to discharges by industrial users
in specific industrial categories
determined to be significant sources of
toxic pollutants. Categorical standards
are designed to ensure that wastewaters
from direct and indirect Industrial
dischargers are subject to similar levels
of treatment.
Finally, 40 G’R 403.5(c) requires
POTWs to develop and enforce local
limits designed to ensure that industrial
users meat both the general and specific
prohibitions. Thus, local limits are
intended to ensure that POTWs are able
to comply with NPDES limits, Including
water-quality based standards. Local
limits are Federally enforceable
pretreatment standards, as defined by
seC. 307(d). In cases where local limits
axe more stringent than categorical
standards, the more stringent limit
applies and is enforceable as a Federal
standard.
On July 24. 1990. EPA promulgated
amendments to the NPDES and General
Pretreatment Regulations to reflect the
findings of the “Report to Congress on
the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to
Publicly Owned Treatment Works,” also
known as the Domestic Sewage Study
(DSS) (55 FR 18716). The rule contained
a number of regulatory changes
Intended to improve control of
hazardous wastes discharged to POTWs,
including revisions to the application
requirements for POTWs at 40 CFR
122.21(j). Paragraphs 122.21Q) (l)—(3)
contain whole effluent to acity (WET)
testing requirements, and paragraph
12L21(j)(4) requires POTWs with
approved pretreatment programs to
submit a written technical evaluation of
the need to revise local limits. Today,
EPA proposes to revise the WET
reporting requirements at § 122 .21(j) and
to revise the provision for the local
limits technical evaluation by i,tnkfrig
this a POTW pretreatment program
requirement rather than an application
requirement based on concerns about
the timing of such evaluations relative
to imposition of water quality.based
effluent limitations in POTW permits.
3. Program To Control Combined Sewer
Overflows
Combined sewer systems (CSSs) are
wastewater collection systems that
transport both sanitary wastewater and
storm water to POTWs. During dry
weather, CSSs carry sanitary wastes, as
well as industrial and commercial
discharges. to POTW treatment plants.
In periods of heavy wet weather flows.
transported sewer waters can overflow
the regulator structures, which normally
convey waste streams to the treatment
plant. and discharge into adjacent
surface waters. These discharges are
called “combined sewer overflows”
(CSOs). CSOs often contain high levels
of suspended solids, bacteria,
pathogens. and, in many instances,
heavy metals and other toxic pollutants.
floatables, nutrients, oxygen-demanding
materials, oil and grease. and other
contaminants.
CSOs are point source discharges
subject to technology-based treatment
requirements and applicable water
quality-based standards through NPDES
permits. Because they occur prior to the
headworks of the POTW treatment
plant, these discharges are not
considered discharges from a POTW
and, consequently. are not subject to
secondary treatment requirements.
In the United States, approximately
1,100 (mostly older) municipalities have
CSSs. with approximately 11,000 CSO
outfalls that periodically discharge
untreated sewage, commercial and
industrial wastes, and storm water
during wet weather events. Almost 85
percent of these municipalities are
located in the Northeast and Great Lakes
areas. Studies conducted in recent years
reveal that CSO discharges are a leading
cause of reduced water quality.
Increased health risks, degraded
ecological conditions, and impaired
beneficial uses within the Nation’s
surface waters. Although pollutant -
concentrations in CSOs frequently are
lower than those in untreated average-
flow municipal wastewater (due to
dilution occurring during high flows),
CSOs often result in large pollutant
loadings within a short time, potentially
causing beach closures, shellfish
dosuzm,andflshkills.
In 1989, EPA published ti
Combined Sewer Overflow t.. .
Strategy (54 FR 37370, Sept. 8, ig
On April 19, 1994, EPA expanded
the 1989 strategy by publishing thi
Control Policy (59 FR 18688). The
Policy was developed through
negotiated dialogue with State,
environmental group, and munjc
representatives. The Policy explaij
EPA’s expectations for control of C
under the CWA and guides NPDE
permitting authorities in issuing p
for CSO discharges. The Policy out
a phased approach to permitting
requirements. Under a Phase Iperr
the permittee should document
implementation of the nine minim
control measures identified in the
Policy as minimum technology-bas
requirements established through b
professional judgment (BPJ) to mm
CSO discharges. The nine xninimur
controls include review and
modification of local pretreatment
programs to minimize CSO impact
receiving waters; maximization of I
to the POTW for treatment; control
solids and floatables; and monitorir
characterize effectively “ r - - -.
and the efficacy . t
The nine minur
measures that can
implemented expeci ...
CSOs and their effects on re..
water quality. The Phase I peri ,.
should not only require implementa
of the nine minimum controls, but
should also require development of
long-term control plan. The long-ter
control plan describes the long-term
control strategy developed to ultima
result in compliance with the
requirements of the CWA (including
attainment of water quality standard
Under a Phase CI permit. the oermitt
Implements the specif -its
described in the long.’. ..icrol p1
C. Sewage Sludge Pmgmm
1. Statutory Requirements for Sewagr
- Sludge
In 1987, Congress amended sec. 40
to establish a comprehensive sewage
sludge control program. This prograir
regulates the use and disposal of sew;
sludge by POTWs and by other
treatment works treating domestic
sewage (TWTDS). Section 405 requirl:
EPA to develop technical standards tk
would establish sewage sludge
management practices and accept hle
levels of toxic pollutants in slut
SectIon 405 also provides that A
permits issued to TWTDS Contain
requirements implementing the sewag
-------
Federal Register / VoL 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
62551
sludge standards, Unless sewage sludge
control requirements are included in a
permit issued under one of the
following: Subtitle C of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act: Part C of the Safe Drinking
Water Act: the Marine Protection,
geseardi. and Sanctuaries Act; the
Clean Air Act; or EPA-approved State
programs that comply with sec. 405.
EPA may also issue “sludge-only”
permits to S that are not
otherwise subject to the NPDES program
or to the other permitting programs
listed above.
z. Sewage Sludge Permit Program
Regulations
On May 2, 1989. EPA promulgated
regulations establishing the legal and
programmatic framework for the
National Sewage Sludge Program (54 FR
18716). Sewage sludge management
provisions are to be incorporated into
EPA-issued permits or permits issued by
a State under an EPA-approved sewage
sludge program. Sewage sludge
information reporting requirements
were also added to the ovetall NPDES
permit application requirements of 40
CFR 122.21. The new regulations,
however, neither listed the specific
sewage sludge information requirements
nor provided a form for reporting this
information. Instead, the rulemaking
cross-referenced the existing State
Sludge Management Program
regulations in Part 501 and required
applicants to submit the information
listed at § 50L15(a)(2). Paragraphs (i)—
(v) of § 501.15(a)(2) require information
on the location and permitting status of
the 1WI’DS. Paragraphs (vi}-(xii)
require technical information on the
applicant’s sewage sludge use or
disposal practice(s).
On February 19, 1993, EPA amended
the sewage sludge permit program
regulations (58 FR 9404). This
amendment phased in requirements for
submitting sewage sludge permit
application information. Any TWTDS
that is required to have, or that requests,
site-specific pollutant limits was
required to submit permit application
information, by August 18, 1993, for the
first round of Part 503 standards. Other
TWTDS with NPDES permits must
submit application information with
their next NPDES permit applications.
Finally, TWTDS without NPDES
permits (“sludge-only facilities”) were
to submit identification and screening
information to the permitting authority
by February 19, 1994. for the first round
if Part 503 standards.
Part 503 TechnIcal Standards
On November 25, 1992, EPA
promulgated the sewage sludge use and
disposal standards required by section -
405 of the CWA (58 FR 9248, at seq.,
February 19. 1993). These standards
regulate the use and disposal of sewage
sludge when it is applied to land,
placed on a surface disposal site
(induding sludge-only landfills), fired
in a sewage sludge incinerator, or sent
to a municipal solid waste landfill
(MSWLFJ, The standards for each
regulated sewage sludge use or disposal
method consist of general requirements,
pollutant limits, management practices,
operational standards, and requirements
for monitoring. mcordkeeping, and
reporting. A number of parties
petitioned for review of the regulations
and on November 15, 1994, the United
States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit remanded several
aspects of the regulations for
modification or additional justification.
Leather Industries of America, Inc. v.
Environmental Protection Agency. 40
F.3d 392 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
4. Implementation of Part 503 Technical
Standards -
Section 405(1 ) of the CWA requires
that permits issued to facilities invoLved
in sewage sludge generation, treatment,
or disposal include Part 503
requirements. Both POTWs and other
TWTDS are engaged in sewage sludge
generation, treatment, or disposal.
However, some of these facilities are not
required to obtain NPDES discharge
permits pursuant to sec. 402 of the CWA
because they do not discharge
pollutants to surface waters. These are
“sludge-only” facilities.
POTW permits must contain
requirements implementing applicable
Part 503 technIcal standards and other
Part 122 permit conditions (such as
boilerplate conditions and compliance
monitoring requirements). POTW
permits may also contain any other
conditions the permitting authority
develops on a case-by-case basis to
protect public health and the
environment The permit also
establishes a POTW’s responsibilities
for sewage sludge it sends to other
facilities for disposal.
In addition to POTWs, other TWTDS
may also be issued permits. These
treatment works include facilities
dedicated to sewage sludge disposal
(I.e., surface disposal sites and sewage
sludge incinerators), as well as certain
facilities that provide treatment or
otherwise change the quality of the
sewage sludge before ultimate use or
disposal. Sewage sludge has undergone
a change In quality if its pollutant
concentrations, pathogen levels, or
vector attraction properties have been
altered sufficiently to change the
sludge’s regulatory status Under Part
503. Therefore, processes such as
stabilization, composting. digestion,
heat treatment, or blending with bulking
agents or with sewage sludge from
another treatment works may all qualify
as sewage sludge treatment. (For a more
detailed discussion of who must apply
for a permit, see the preamble to the
May 2, 1989, regulatIons at 54 FR
18725.)
5. Interim Sewage Sludge Permit
Application Form
On November 8, 1993, EPA published
a notice about the interim sewage sludge
permit application form (58 FR 59260).
This interim form was developed to
simplify the application process until
Form ZS was completed. Section
122.21(d)(3 1(il) requires sewage sludge
permit applications to Include the
information at § 501.15(a)(2), which
includes both specific and general
information. This interim form ensures
that permittees submit the necessary
Information: helps perrnittees to
understand exactly which requirements
apply to them; and makes the
application requirements consistent for
all permittees.
Proposed Form 2S is based on the
interim application form. EPA
welcomes comments on the proposed
Form ZS. especially from users of the
interim form.
D. NPDES Watershed Straiegy
The Watershed Protection Approach
is an Agency initiative which promotes
integrated solutions to address surface
water, ground water, and habitat
concerns on a watershed basis. It
represents EPA’s renewed emphasis on
addressing all stressors within a
hydrologically defined drainage basin.
instead of viewing individual pollutant
sources In Isolation. It is not a new
program competing with, or replacing.
existing programs; rather, it provides a
management framework, within which
baseline CWA program requirements.
related public health concerns, and
newer initiatives can be integrated to
address restoration and protection of
aquatic ecosystems cost-effectively.
The Watershed Protection Approach
‘has four components. First, it focuses
protection and restoration activities
within a geographically defined
resource, the watershed. Second, it
emphasizes the involvement of all
affected stakeholders wijhin a
watershed; these may include Federal
authorities, State governments. local
governments, the regulated community,
environmental groups, and other
Interested parties. Third, it stresses the
need for appropriate stakeholders to
-------
62552 Federal Register I VoL 60. No. 234 / Wednesday, December 8, 1995 I Proposed Rules
take comprehensive, integrated actions
to address environmental priorities.
Finally. it promotes a regular effort to
evaluate the surcess of these actions In
protecting and restoring the watershed.
The broad range of NPDES functions
and activities gives the NPDES program
a key role in implementing the
Watershed Protection Approach. On
Mardi 21.1994, the EPA Assistant
Administrator for Water issued the
NPDES Watershed Strategy. The
Strategy represents a first step toward
OW’s goal of fully integrating the
NPDES program into the broader
Watershed Protection Approach.
The Strategy outlines national
objectives and Implementation
activides (1) to integrate NPDES
program functions into the broader
Watershed Protection Approach; and (2)
to support the development of
Statewide basin management
approaches. To this end, the Strategy
identifies six areas that are considered
essential for the Agency to support these
objectives:
Statewide Coordination—Support the
development of Statewide basin
management frameworks, coordinate
EPA Office of Water grants application
and reporting processes, and coordinate
Interstate basin efforts to facilitate
implementation of the Watershed
Protection Approach:
NPDES Permits—implement a
methodology for Issuing NPDES permits
on a watershed basis and emphasize
training on watershed protection.
Streamline the NPDES permit
development, issuance, and review
process. Develop and implement
innovative approaches to NPDES
permitting on a watershed basls. where
feasible;
Monitoring and Assessment—Develop
a Statewide monitoring strategy
establish point source ambient
monitoring requirements, where
appropriate, to facilitate the
development of monitoring consortla
and Individual monitoring efforts; and
promote comparable data collection.
analysis, and utilization by all
stak.holdere;
Programmatic Measures and
Environmental Indicators—Revise
existing national accountability
measures to facilitate Implementation of
the Watershed Potectlon Approach arid
establish new measures of success that
reflect assessment of progress toward
short- and long-term watershed
protection goal*
PublicPartlcipatlon—UWIz existing
NPDES public participation process and
development of basin.wide management
plans to encourage informed
participation by watershed stakeholders,
educate stakeholders about watershed
pki nlng efforts, and seek broad public
participation in identifying local
environmental goals; and
Enforcement—Include emphasis on
minor facilities which are discharging to
priority basins, within the base national
enforcement program, and use 308
authorities, inspections and
supplemental environmental projects,
where appropriate, to support
watershed protection activities.
The Agency views today’s rulemaking
as an opportunity to further the
objectives of the Watershed Protection
Approach and the NPDES Watershed
Strategy. Both proposed Form ZA and
proposed Form 2S request information
which support these objectives. These
questions are discussed in detail below.
The Agency requests comment on whet
specific additional changes might be
made to proposed Form ZA and
proposed Form 2$ to support the
Watershed Protection Approach.
H. Permit Writer’s Information Needs
Related to Endangered Species and
Historic Properties
EPA Is considering whether the
permit application regulations should
require permit applicants to provide
available information related to
endangered species and historic
properties. The Endangered Species Act,
16 U.S.C. § 1531 at seq., creates certain
obligations requiring the Agency to
consult with other federal agencies (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and National
Marine Fisheries Services) when EPA
carries out, authorizes, or funds an
action that may affect threatened or
endangered (“listed”) species. The
National Historic Preservation Act, 18
U.S.C. § 470 at seq.. creates certain
obligations requiring the Agency to
consult with State officials (State
Historic Preservation Officers) and/or
federal officials at the Advisory Council
for Historic Preservation in order for
EPA to take into account the effect on
historic properties otan “undertaking,”
as that term is defined by the National
Historic Preservation Act. EPA believes
that the collection of such Information
would be useful. to regulatory officials in
considering permit applications for
activities or undertnkthg that may
affect llsted species or historic
properties, respectively. Absent
information in the permit application.
EPA may need to collect such
information on a case-by-case basis.
which could delay the permit issuance
process in some instances.
EPA invites public comment on the
information that could or should be
provided by the permit applicant.
Specifically. tf EPA established permit
application questions about lir’
species or historic properties.
of information can or should the per
applicant provide? Would it be
appropriate to request that the perm
applicant Identify whether there are
known or suspected listed species.
including species proposed for listi.
and designated critical habitat, or
historic properties in the area of the
POTW discharge (or sludge usa or
disposal site by a TWTDS) that wou
be affected by that POTW discharge
sludge use or disposal by a TWTDS
How could or should EPA provide
applicants with flexibility to assist
regulatory officials in the considerat
of potential impacts of activities on
listed species or historic properties?
Though EPA does not propose what
type of information related to
endangered species or historic
properties would be sought in today
proposal, any such information
collection requests in the final
regulation may affect the costs
associated with complying with the
permit application regulations, both
terms of financial cost and burden
hours. EPA Invites public comment
all aspects of efficient federal permi
of POTWs (and TWTDS) consisu nt
requirements of the Endangert
Act and the National Historic
Preservation Act.
F. Permit as a Shield
Section 402(k) of the CWA, also
known as the “shield” provision.
provides that compliance with an
NPDES permit shall be deemed
compliance, for purposes of sec. 30S
and 505 enforcement, with sec. 301,
302, 306, 307, and 403 of the CWA
(except for any standard imposed ur
sec. 307 for toxic pollutants injuriou
h”rnn health). In response to quest.
raised regarding EPA’s interpretatloi
the scope of the “shield” associated
with NPDES permits under the CW
the Agency issued a policy statemen
July 1. 1994. to describe the Agency’
current position on the scope of the
authorization by EPA to discharge w
an NPDES permit and the shield thu
associated with permit authorizatioc
As part of an.application for an
individual NPDES permit. EPA requ
that an applicant provide certain
Information on its facility. In the cas
industrial permit application, this
includes specific information about
presence and quantity of a number c
specific pollutants in the facilit”
effluent, as well as general infc
on all waste streams and operat ..a
contributing to the facility’s effluent
the treatment the wastewater receive
Present application requirements for
-------
C
Federal Register / Vol. 60 , No. 234 I Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
02553
municipal discharges focus primarily on
the operation and treatment processes at
the municipal treatment works.
although some quantitative information
Is also required.
Hlstoricaliy. EPA has viewed the
permit, together with material submitted
during the application process and
information in the public record
accompanying the permit. as important
bases for an authorization to discharge
under sec. 402 of the CWA. The
availability of the sec. 402(k) shietd Is
predicated upon the issuance of an
NPDES permit and a permittee’s full
compliance with all applicable
application requirements, any
additional information requests made by
the permit authority and any applicable
notification requirements under 40 CFR
§ 122.41(1) and 122.42. as well as any
additional requirements specified in the
permit
In the July 1, 1994, policy statement.
the Agency explained that a permit
provides authorization and therefore a
shield for the following pollutants
resulting from facility processes, waste
streams and operations that have been
clearly identified In writing in the
permit appilcati on process when
discharged from specified outfalls:
(I) Pollutants specifically limited in
the permit or pollutants which the
permit, fact sheet, or administrative
record explicitly Identify as controlled
through indicator parameters (of course,
authorization is only provided to
discharge such pollutants Within the
limits and subject to the conditions set
forth in the permit);
(2) Pollutants for which the permit’
authority has not established limits or
other permit conditions, but which aie
specifically identified in writing as
present In facility discharges during the
permit application process: and
(3) Pollutants not Identified as present
but which are constituents of
wastestreams, operations or processes
that were clearly identified during the
permit application prooms (the permit.
of course, may explicitly prohibit or
limit the scope of such discharges).
With respect to subparts 2 and 3 of
the permit authorization described
above, the Agency recognizes that a
discharger may make changes to Its
permitted facility (which contribute
pollutants to the emuent at a permitted
outfall) during the effective period of
the NPOES permit Pollutants associated
with these changes (provided they are
within the scope of the operations
identified in the permit application) are
also authorized provided the discharger
has complied In a timely manner with
all applicable notification requirements
(see 40 CFR 122.41(1) and 122.42 (a) and
(b)) and the permit does not otherwise
limit or prohibit such discharges.
Section 122.42(b) requires that POTWs
must provide adequate notice, including
information on the quality and quantity
of discharges to the POTW and
anticipated Impacts on the quantity or
quality of effluent discharged by the
POTW. of new introductions of
pollutants by indirect dischargers into
the POTW and any substantial change
in the volume or character of pollutants
being introduced by sources introducing
pollutants into the POTW at the time of
permit issuance.
Notwithstanding any pollutants that
may be authorized pursuant to subparts
I and 2 above, an NPDES permit does
not authorize the discharge of any
pollutants associated with
wastestreams, operations. or processes
which existed at the time of the permit
application and which were not clearly
identified during the application
process.
In the July 1994 policy statement, the
Agency committed to revise the NPDES
permit application regulations for both
municipal and industrial discharges, so
as to ensure that applicants would have
the responsibility to characterize more
fully the nature of the ir effluents and
the contributions of their effluents to
receiving waters. The Agency stated
that, in addressing this issue, it would
review EPA’s position on the scope of
the shield provided by sec. 402(k).
Generally, the discharger is in the best
position to know the nature of its
discharge and potential sources of
pollutants. Consequently, requiring as
full a disclosure as technically possible
in the permit application is one option
EPA may want to consider in light of the
protection afforded the discharger by
the permit shield. However, in the case
of POTWs. providing a permit shield
only for pollutant discharges fully and
completely characterized in the permit
application could represent a significant
burden on POTWa if they were required
to identify every pollutant discharged.
This is so because of the potential
pollutant contribution into POTW sewer
systems from industrial users and
residential dlschargers. Narrowing the
scope of the shield and consequent
expansion of potential liability would
likely raise the cost associated with the
failure to anticipate, detect, and provide
information art these discharges.
The Agency has concerns that, using
the current appli ation form, permitting
authorities using the existing municipal
application forms may not always
receive the information about an
applicant’s discharge needed to develop
permits consistent with the
requirements of the CWA. In today’s
proposed rule, the Agency is updating
its POTW discharge application
requirements (proposed Form ZA and
proposed § 122.21(j)) to provide more
information to permit writers and to
streamline the permitting process by
ensuring that the information needed
from most applicants is consolidated
onto a single application form. The
Agency solicits comment on whether
the proposal adequately addresses these
concerns. Moreover, EPA is seeking the
public’s views on how to strike the
proper balance between the need for
environmental protection, incentives to
ensure adequate disclosure, and the
discharger’s need for certainty that its
conduct meets legal requirements.
The Agency also specifically requests
comment on adding additional
application requirements that would
make applicants responsible for
providing more information than that
specified on the form. For example. the
Agency is considering adding a question
asking whether the POTW has any other
information on pollutants not otherwise
requested on the form. The Agency is
also considering whether to ask whether
the POTW has any information on
adverse impacts on water quality. such
as information concerning beach
closings, citizen complaints, or fish
kills. In providing comments on such
questions. comznenters should state
whether they would have a chilling
effect on—that is, might tend to
inhibit—the activities of POTWs already
participating, for example, in ambient
monitoring. Comment is also requested
on the extent to which such information
Is already available to permitting
authorities.
G. Pollutant Data from PO7Ws
In preparing options for pollutant data
collection for today’s proposed rule, the
Agency sought to identify relevant
pollutant data records for reference. In
so doing, the Agency reviewed POTW
effluent “priority pollutant scan” data
from EPA Region V I and from North
Carolina. These data represented data
from samples of the effluents of several
hundred POTWs with a design flow
greater or equal to one (1.0) mgd (i.e.,
“major” POTWs). Although the’
information requested by the Region
and State differed in some respects,
each required major POTWs to report on
all ‘priority pollutants” (I.e.. the
pollutants listed in 40 CFR Part 122,
Appendix D, Tables II and UI). The
Agency compiled this information in a
database, and analyzed it to determine
the pollutants most frequently detected
in these effluents.
The Agency concluded that, although
this survey was not conducted based o.
-------
62554 Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 234 I Wednesday, December 6, 1995 I Proposed Rules
statistical methodologies, it was
possible to discern certain general
patterns in the Incidence of pollutants
reported. Our review of Region VI and
North Carolina data indicated that over
90% of 300 POTWs sampled reported at
least one of the chemicals listed In
Appendix D, Table IL Copper and zinc
each appeared In two-thirds of all the
POTWs surveyed: lead and nickel each
appeared in about thirty percent of the
effluents sampled: antimony, arsenic,
cadmium, and silver each appeared in
more than fifteen percent of facilities;
and mercury and cyanide each appeared
in slightly fewer than fifteen percent.
Certain volatile organice (Le., TUMs)
each appeared in roughly a quarter or
more of the POVNs sampled; and
certain base neutral compounds (i.e.,
pthalate esters) each showed up in ten
to twenty. percent of POTWs. Finally,
only a few of the pesticides listed in
Appendix D, Table U were reported in
a small number of these s’ ans .
While this information was not
determinative lathe Agency’s decisions
about what to include on the forms, it
was consistent with other information
provided, and supported some of the
Agency’s assumptions articulated
- elsewhere in this preamble concerning
the appropriate pollutant test data to
require from major POTWa. Notably
lacking, however, were data on
discharges from “minor” POTWs (those
with a d esign flow of less than one (1.0)
mgd). The Agency Is seeking
information concerning the discharges
from minor POTWs and Intends to
collect such information between this
proposal and the final rule that will
provide a basis for determining the
appropriate sampling requirements for
those POTWe.
H. Public Consultation in the
Development of Todays Proposal
In the course of developing today’s
proposed rule. EPA made efforts to
consult with interested stakeholders in
the application process. In late 1993 and
early 1994. the Agency sought feedback
on draft forms and other elements of the
proposal from States with approved
NPDES programs, local governments.
the Association of State and Interstate
Water Pollution Control Administrators
(ASIWPCA). the Association of
Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
(AMSA), the California Association of
Sanitation Agencies (CASA). the Water
Environment Federation (WEF), and
several environmental groups. In
response to this outreach effort, the
Agency received written comments from
a dozen States, several municipalities,
and from AMSA. Agency
representatives also met with State and
municipal representatives and
conducted a conference call through
WET.
With respe to the P01W wastewater
discharge application, the Agency was
particularly interested in issues relating
to pollutant data collection. The Agency
Indicated that It was considering a
tiered approach. based upon POTW size
and the level of industrial contribution
(i.e.. whether the POTW was required to
implement a local pretreatment
program). Most commenters generally
supported the idea of a tiered approach
(I.e., that the Agency not require the
same information from all POTWs). The
Agency received an array of suggestions
concerning what pollutant data should
be required. Among the concerns raised
by commenters were the following: ease
of completion; flexible implementation
by States reduced pollutant data
requirements; sensitivity to impacts on
small municipalities: and elimination of
redundant reporting. In addition, the
Agency received numerous technical
comments concerning various details of
the information to be reported.
In response, the Agency has made
changes to the proposed rule to provide
a user-friendly modular design for the
forms and has revised its Initial
approach to municipal pollutant data
collection for this proposaL The
Agency’s proposed approach to
pollutant data collection would limit
pollutant data requests to those
pollutants of greatest concern and
would require less pollutant data from
smaller municipalities. However, the
Agency is still considering several
options concerning the amount of
pollutant data to be provided, Including
options that would require minor
POTWs to provide sampling data on
metals, some organic compounds, and
whole effluent toxicity.
With respect to the sludge
application, the Agency was interested
In the type and amount of pollutant data
currently requested by States. Responses
showed variation aipong States.
Comments were also received that
questioned the need for some of the
information to be collected by Form 2S.
The Agency has removed some
questions that it agrees are not necessary
for sludge permit applications. The
Agency also requests comment on
several options for pollutant data
collection.
Finally, the Agency proposes to allow
the use of existing data and to reduce
redundant reporting by allowing
permitting authorities to waive
reporting of information to which they
have direct access. This proposal is
discussed in more detail in those
portions of the preamble which focus on
the relevant provisions of the p”no
rule. The Agency also sollcit .
on alternative considerations
specifically addressed to pollutant C
submission ana Industrial user
information.
IL Approach Taken in Today’s Not
A. Scope of Today’s Rulemaking
Today’s notice proposes two sets
NPDES application requirements aa
corresponding permit application fc
together with instructions, for each.
Proposed S 122.21(j) contains
application requirements pertaining
wastewater treatment and discharge
publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs1. and would require that
applicants submitting this informati
to EPA use new Form ZA. Proposed
§ 122.21(q) contains application
requirements pertaining to ganeratic
treatment, and disposal of sewage
sludge at POTWs and other treatmer
works treating domestic sewage. ar
would require that appI c -t
submitting applicatior.
Form 2S.
The proposed forms WOL.
both by EPA and by approved NP&_.
States that choose to adopt these fori
Approved States could also ele” ‘t
forms of then’ own design so Ic
information requested includes.
the information required by ‘h.’
NPDES/sludge regulations
State NPDES authorities
additional information from ecmL.
applicants whenever necessary to
establish appropriate permit limits a.
conditions. CWA sec. 308.
The proposed forms and instructio
for each form are included with toda
proposed rule as an appendix to the
rulemaking package. EPA is not
intending to publish the forms and
Instructions with the final rule, so as
reduce the length of the Federal
Register notice for the final rulemaki.
and solicits comment on this issue.
B. The Agency Proposes to Revise the
Definition of PO N and Existing Pen
Application Requirements for POThV
Today, EPA proposes to revise the
definition of the term “POTW,” as
defined in 40 R Part 122 to conforr
more exactly with the definition of th
term at 40 CFR Part 403. “POTW” is
defined at 40 CFR 403.3 as “a treatme
works. . .which is owned by a State
or municipality.” This definition
includes devices and systems use’ 1 in
the storage, treatment, recyclin
reclamation of municipal sewag
industrial wastes of a liquid nature. ar
well as sewers, pipes, and other
conveyances that carry wastewater to
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 I Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
62555
POTW treatment plant. As defined, the
term “POTW” also refers to the
municipality that has jurisdiction over
the discharges to and from such a
treatment plant. In today’s proposed
rule, the Agency proposes to revise the
definition of POTW in Part 122 so as to
be consistent with the more commonly
understood definition located in Part
403.
The Agency’s intention is to simplify
and clarify, though EPA recognizes that
any change may create unanticipated
confusion. The Agency solicits
comments on effects on conforming the
Part 122 definition with the Part 403
definition. Specifically, the Agency is
interested in the extent the change
would affect: implementation of the
Combined Sewer Overflow policy;
regulatory consideration of sanitary
sewer overflows; and implementation
and applicability of the NPDES and
pretreatment programs to sewerage
collection systems that are not owned!
operated by the owner/operator of the
treatment plant to which collected -.
waste waters are transported.
The Agency proposes to revise whole
effluent toxicity testing requirements
found in the existing POTW permit
application regulations at § 122.21(j).
Under existing § 122.21(j) (1)—(3), a
POTW must provide the results of
whole effluent biological toxicity testing
as part of its NPDES permit application,
if the POTW has a design flow equal to
or greater than one million gallons per
day; LI it has (or is required to have) an
approved pretreatment program; or if it
is required to report by the Director
(NPDES State Program Director or EPA
Regional Administrator). The Agency
proposes to revise this requirement to
reflect Agency guidance and policy, as
well as practical experience in
implementing existing requirements, as
set forth at proposed § 122.21(j)(4).
The Agency proposes to change the
pretreatment requirement for local limit
calculations from an application
requirement to a permit requirement
Under existing § 122.21(j)(4). any POTW
with an approved pretreatment program
must provide a written technical
evaluation of the need to revise local
limits under 40 CFR 403.5(clil). The
existing provision requires that the local
limits evaluation be done prior to
permit issuance. This has generated
feedback from States and municipalities
thatitwouldbebettertorequirethe -
evaluation after permit Issuance, so as to
avoid the need for a second technical
evaLuation if the POTW’s permit Limits
are revised In the new permit In
response to these concerns, the Agency
proposes to change this from an
application requirement to a POTW
pretreatment program requirement, at
proposed § 403.a(fl(4)(B).
C. EPA Proposes Form 2A for POTWs to
Replace Standard Form A and Short
Form A
Today EPA proposes a new NPDES
application form, Form 2A, for POTWs.
Currently. POTWs may be required to
submit one of two forms, depending on
the size of the POTW. While both of
these forms are approved Federal forms
the NPDES regulations do not require
use of the forms by POTWs when
applying for a permit. Standard Form A
is intended to be used by all POTWs
with a design flow equal to or exceeding
one million gallons per day. Standard
Form A contains questions about the
facility and collection system.
discharges to and fron the facility
(including information on some specific
pollutant parameters), and scheduled
improvements and schedules of
implementation. Short Form A is
intended for use by all POTWs with a
design flow of less than one million
gallons per day. Short Form A contains
only fifteen questions of a summary
nature, and asks for virtually no
information on specific pollutants.
Many States use one or both of the
Federal forms, but a number of States
have developed State forms that request
information not included on the Federal
forms.
EPA proposes to replace both
Standard Form A and Short Form A
with a single Form 2A, subdivided into
two parts, titled “Basic Application
Information” and “Supplemental
Application Information”. Basic
application information would include
information about the collection system
and the treatment plant, general
information concerning the types of
discharges from the treatment plant,
identification of outfalls, certain effluent
characteristics, and scheduled
improvements. The Agency believes
that a separate short form for all minor
POTWs is no longer appropriate,
because in order to establish adequate
permit limits, information such as that
mentioned above must be collected from
all POTWs. regardless of size.
On the other hand, the Agency
recognizes the need to be selective in
requiring further additional information.
For this reason, the Agency has divided
the proposed form into two parts. To
limit the reporting burden for smaller
POTWs without significant industrial
contributions, EPA proposes to require
effluent monitoring data for 17
parameters from POTWs with design•
flows less than one million gallons per
day (mgd) and without pretreatment
programs. These 17 parameters consist
mostly of conventional and
necconventlonal pollutants. Larger
POTWs and pretreatment POTWs, by
comparison, would be required to report
effluent monitoring data for metals and
organic compounds as well as the 17
parameters required for smaller POTWs.
Thus, the Basic Application Information
part of Form 2A would require reporting
on those parameters required of all
POTWs, while the Supplemental
Application Information part of the form
would be used by applicants providing
data on toxic pollutants (i.e., larger
POTWs and pretreatment POTWs).
Similarly, the Supplemental
Application Information part of Form
2A Is intended to be used by applicants
required to provide the results of whole
effluent toxicity tests, applicants with
significant industrial users, and
applicants with CSOs.
The Agency also invites comment on
requiring use of the form itself. As
explained previously. EPA conducted
significant public outreach to design an
application form that is easy to use,
including outreach on the form itself.
Use of the form would provide all of the
information requested in the proposed
application regulations, whereas
modification of the form may result in
failure to provide information to be
required in the proposed regulations.
On the other hand. EPA seeks to provide
maximum flexibility by “streamlining”
procedures for permit development. The
Agency seeks comment on whether
requiring use of the form would
interfere with streamlining permitting
procedures.
0. Applicability of Form 2A to Privately
Owned and Federally Owned Treatment
Works
As in the case of existing Standard
Form A and Short Form A, EPA
proposes that Form 2A and the
application requirements at § 122.21(j)
be required only for POTWs. However,
the Agency proposes that the Director
have the discretion to use the proposed
form for treatment works that are not
POTWs. As previously discussed, the
NPDES program has evolved
considerably since Standard Form A
and Short Form A were promulgated in
- 1973, and now embraces facilities that
operate similarly to POTWs but which
do not meet the regulatory definition of
POTW. Although not owned by a State
or municipality, such facilities
nevertheless receive predominantly
domestic wastewater, provide physical
and/or biological treatment, and
discharge effluent to waters of the
United States. Such facilities include
Federally owned treatment works
(FOTWs) and privately owned treatment
-------
82536 Federal Register /VoL 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 I Proposed Rules
works that treat primarily domestic
wastewater.
EPA is aware that Federal and State
permitting authorities use a number of
mechanisms for obtaining NPDES
permit application Information from
non-POT?! treatment works. These
mechanisms include Standard Farm A.
Short Form A. Form 2C (“Existing
Manufacturing, Commercial. Mining.
and Silvicultural Operations”), and
Form ZE (“Facilities Which Do Not
Discharge Process Wastewater”). The
Agency believes that Form 2A would in
many cases be the more appropriate
application form for non-POTW
treatment works, and solicits comments
on its applicability to such facilities.
Nevertheless, the Agency does not —
propose to require Form 2A for non-
POTW treatment works. Despite many
functional gimitArjtle s to POTWs, such
facilities do not share the same
regulatory requirements and thus might
not be required to feport the same
information to permitting authorities. In
many Instances. non-POTW treatment
works are not required under the
NPDES regulations to develop -
pretreatment programs, meet secondary
treatment requirements, or report results
of whole effluent toxicity testing with
their permit applications. For those
facilities, requiring such Infonnatlon
through Form ZA might be unnecessary.
The Agency solicits comments on
whether the provisions of §122.21(j)
and the requirement to use Form 2A
should be extended to treatment works
other than POTWs. EPA Is particularly
interested In commenters’ views on how
to collect appropriate Information in
appropriate circumstances. EPA also
seeks to design permit application
requirements to a unt for
privatizatlon of treatment plants
Initially constructed as publicly owned
eatment works. The permit application
requirements In this proposed rule may
be appropriate for partially privatized
portions of POTWa, particularly because
the proposed Information regulations in
today’s rule would solicit Information
about sewerage collection systems that
might not otherwise be collected under
the Industrial permit application
regulations. Finally. EPA solicits
comment on the extent of the stniilerity
between POTWe and FO’FWs, for
example, whether FOVNs would have
combined sewage collection systems. In
another part of today’s proposal. EPA is
soliciting comment about the definition
of POTW to which the permit
application regulations would apply.
H. EPA Proposes Revised Application
Requirements and Form 25 for Sewage
Sludge Permits
Today. EPA also proposes a new form,
Form 25. to collect information on
sewage shadge from treatment works
treating domestic sewage (TW’TDS). The
term “treatment works treating domestic
Sewage” is a broad one, intended to
reach facilities that generate sewage
sludge or effectively change its pollutant
characteristics as well as facilities that
control us disposaL The term includes
all P(fl ’Ws and other fachties that treat
wastewater. It also includes
f eiteien that do not treat domestic
wastewater but that treat or dispose of
sew s1udge such as sewage sludge
lnrin retole , composting facilities,
commercial sewage sludge handlers that
pru s sIud e for distribution, and sites
used for sewage sludge disposal. In
addition. EPA may designate a facility a
TWTDS when the facility’s sludge
quality or sludge handling, use, or
disposal practices have the potential to
adversely effect public health and the
environment Septic tanks or similar
devices are not considered TWTDS.
In addition to proposing sewage
sludge application requirements in new
paragraph 122.21(q), EPA also proposes
to delete the aoss-reference to
§501.15(a)(2) in paragraph
122.21(d)(3)(U). This would consolidate
all of the sewage sludge application
requirements in paragraph 122.21(q).
The Information included In
§ 122.21(d)(3)(lI) and § 501.15(a)(2) was
not intended to be a final.
comprehensive list of all of the
application information required of a
TWTDS. Such a comprehensive list was
not possible until alter promulgation of
the technical sewage sludge standards.
Rather, with these sections, EPA
provided a minimum set of information
requirements to suffice until more
comprehensive sewage sludge permit
application regulations could be
promulgated. In light of the
promulgation of technical sewage
sludge use or disposal standards, at 40
CFR Part 503, EPA today proposes to
modify the sewage sludge permit
application requirements to add new
§ 122.21(q) and to revise paragraph
§ 122.21(d)(3)(ll) aocordlngly.
EPA Intends to maintain consist(ncy
b tween the NPDES permit application
requirements of Part 122 and the State
sewage sludge permitting requirements
of Parts 123 and 501. This reflects EPA’s
belief that a TWTDS should submit the
same application information regardless
of whether the permitting authority
regulates sludge management under an
approved NPDES or under a non’NPDES
program. Therefore, under today’s
rulemaking, EPA also proposes to ii.
the language of § 123.25(a)(4) and
501.15(a)(2) to modify the slu ”
information requirements. e
comment on this revision.
F. Reasons for Separate Form Li a
Form 2S
EPA today proposes two separat
forms for municipal wasteweter
discharges and sludge for.several
reasons. First, the forms would di i
their applicability. Form 2A wouli
apply only to POTWs; Form 2S Wi
require information from all TW’Ii
Most facilities that generate, treat.
dispose of sewage sludge are POT’
and will be required to submit bot
application forms. However, sevem
thousand TWTDS do not dlscharg
surface waters and therefore are a
required to have NPDES dischargi
permits. Thus, they would be reqt
to submit Form ZS but not Form 2
Second, separate application fo
are also appropriate because was
and sewage sludge are often regui
by different permitting authoritie
States and territories, the NPDES
program is administered at the S 1
level through an EPA.approved ‘
program. Therefore. POTWs in N
States would obtain NPDES pern
from the State permitting authori
submitting Form ZA to the c’
sewage sludge permits froc
submitting Form 2S to the h •
Office). Separate application form’.
would facilitate this bifurcated
permitting process. In addition, €
when a State sludge permitting
is approved, the program will nc
necessarily be administered by t
State’s NPDES permitting author
example, a POTW in a State witi
NPDES and sludge permitting at.
could receive its NPDES permit
water management agency and i
sewage sludge permit from a sol
agency. Separate Forms 2A and
would also facilitate permitting
situation.
G. EPA Solicits Comment on the
.Electronic Application Farms
Consistent with receniamend
the Paperwork Reduction Act. ri
Agency Intends to develop elect
data submission as an altarnat.h
of application. The use of electr
media should help to streamlin
application process and to redu
amount of repetition associated
completing application forms ti
only available on hard copy. &
previously noted, the eliminath
redundant reporting is or F
of this rulemaking.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 8, 1995 / Proposed Rules
6255
It is not clear, however, how this
would best be accomplished, especially
because permit application forms must
be “signed” to ensure reliability of
permit application information (and
enforceability of the permit application
regulations). Options range from
tr ’n’m1tting data electronically,
submitting disk copies; or submitting a
hard copy. it might be most feasible to
have electronic forms that could be
distributed and completed
electronically, and then printed, signed,
and submitted. Although the Agency is
considering how “signatures” for
electronic submissions could be
obtained, there are other issues
concerning the use of application forms,
such as how to attach accompanying
documents. The Agency solicits
comments regarding the interest that
applicants and permitting authorities
may have in this area, and suggestions
as to how it could most feasibly be
accomplished.
I I I. Description of Proposed
Requirements
A. EPA Proposes to Revise Requirements
in 5122.21 (c). (d) and (fl Concerning
the Use of Forms 1, 2A, and 2S
EPA proposes revisions to the existing
general application requirements for all
NPDES perxnittees. which would require
the use of Forms ZA and 25 by
applicants for EPA-issued permits. The
proposed rule would not require
applicants using thesb forms to use
Form 1, as Is currently required. Today’s
proposed rule substantially incorporates
the requirements of § 122.21(0 into the
requirements of proposed § 122.21 -
paragraphs (j) and (q).
1. Requiróment to Submit Form 2A
EPA proposes in § 122.21(d) to require
POTWs to submit the information at
§ 122.21(j) using Form 2A or an
equivalent form approved by the -
Director. The Agency proposes to
require applicants for EPA-issued
permits to complete Form iA. but Is
considering not requiring the use of the
form so long as the proposed regulatory
requirements axe met The Agency
intends to allow the use of any method
of electronic data submission the
Agency may approve as part of the final
rule Lu lieu of the form itself.
2. Requirement to Submit Form 2S
EPA also proposes in § 122.21
paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (d) to require
TWTDS to submit the information at
§ 122.21(q) using Form ZSor an
equivalent form approved by the
Director. As with Form 2A. the Agency
proposes to require applicants for EPA-
Issued permits to complete Form 2S, but
is considering not requiring the use of
the form so long as the proposed
regulatory requirements are met. Also as
with Form 2A. the Agency Intends to
allow the use of any method of
electronic data submission the Agency
may approve as part of the final rule.
B. Application Requirements for POTWs
(40 CFR 122.21(j))
Today’s proposed rule includes
application requirements for all POTWs.
These requirements are proposed at 40
CFR 122.21(j). Form ZA tracks the
information required by the regulation
in parallel fashion. Applicants for State-
issued permits are not required to use
Form 2A, so long as the other
application form provided by the
Director requests the information
required by proposed § 122.21(j).
EPA acknowledges concerns relating
to redundant reporting which were
raised by State and municipal
commenters during the consultation
process. The Agepcy does not wish to
require applicants to report information
already provided or available to the
permitting authority. Today’s proposal
would allow permitting authorities to
waive reporting requirements. as.
appropriate. The introductory paragraph
of proposed § 122.21(j) would allow the
Director to waive any requirement in
proposed paragraph (j) if the Director -
has access to substantially identical
information. The Agency solicits
comment on this approach and.
specifically, on the conditions for
allowing such a waiver. In today’s
proposed rule, the Agency also solicits
comments on more narrowly defined
waivers for specific requirements (see
discussion below concerning pollutant
data requirements and industrial user
information requirements).
The Agency also solicits comment on
ways to allow the permit writer or.
permitting authority discretion in
waiving particular information where
the permitting authority determines that
such information is not necessary for
the application. In other words, there
may be flexible ways to look at each
applicant in light of the overall “matrix
of characteristics” regarding a particular
facility. Where, for example, historical
data indicate that additional sampling Is
not warranted unless other conditions
have changed, the Agency is allowing
the permitting authority to waive such
sampling. Such flexibility would
involve a holistic approach to
implementing these proposed
requirements. The Agency solicits
comment as to ways in which it could
be accomplished without making these
provisions entirely discretionary, and
thus miiking It difficult for the appllcan
to predict how discretion would be
exercised. This might be particularly
relevant on the second and subsequent
rounds of permitting under these
proposed provisions. The Agency also
seeks comment on what Information
might be appropriate and what
information might be inappropriate for
such waivers.
1. Basic Application Information
Today’s proposal would require all
POTW applicants to provide the
Information in proposed § 122.21(j)(1).
All of this information is also requested
In Questions 1—16 of the Basic
Application Information part of
proposed Form 2A.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(1) of today’s rule
would require information on the
POTW’s service area and physical plant.
The proposed rule would require all
applicants to provide information
regarding the community served and
physical characteristics of the treatment
works.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(1)(i) requests
facility identification information.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(1)Ui) requests
information about the applicant, which
may or may not be the facility itself.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(1)(iii) asks the
applicant to provide permit numbers of
any existing environmental permits that
have been issued to the facility.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(l)(iv) would
require the applicant to list the
municipalities and populations served
by the POTW. The POTW may serve
seyeral areas (including unincorporated
connector districts) in addition to the
one in which it is located. The permit
writer needs to know what areas are
served and the actual population served
In order to calculate the potential
domestic sewage loading to the facility.
The information on the community is
also useful for providing notice and
public comment for permit reissuance,
and for public education.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(1)(v) would
require the applicant to report the
facility’s design flow rate and the
annual average daily flow rate for each
of the past three years. This information
enables the permitting authority to
calculate limits appropriate to the
POTW, to alert the permitting authority
to tile need for flow restrictions or
facility expansion, and to compare
design and actual flows.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(l)(vi) would
require information on the type of
collection system used by the facility.
The applicant would also identify
whether the collection system is a
separate sanitary system or a combined
storm and sanitary system. The
-------
02558 Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6. 1995 I Proposed Rules
applicant would also estimate the
percent of sewer line that each type
comprises. F*miIl i 4 ty with the typeof
collection system enables the permit
writer to anticipate combined collection
system overloading in wet weather. The
• current application form, Standard
Form A, requests that.the applicant also
provide the length of the collection
• system (In miles). The proposed rule
does not include this requirement
because the Agency does not believe
that such Information is useful to the
permit writer.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(1)(vil) would
also require Information on inflow and
infiltrhtlon. Inflow is the uncontrolled
entrance of water into the collection
system from surface sources such as
unsealed miinholes. Infiltration Is water
that enters the collection system
through deteriorated or defective pipes.
Joints, and connections. Both conditions
may Indicate the need for special permit
conditions (such as best management
practices) to reduce the inadvertent flow
• of water to the POTW. A requests
comment on the availability of inflow
and infiltration Information at POTWs.
This provision would also request
information on steps the facility is
taking to m,nimiva inflow and
Infiltration.
Proposed § 122.21QX1)(vili) would
require the applicant to provide a
topographic map that Includes
Information on the layout of the
treatment plant. Including all unit
processes; Intake and discharge
structures; wells, springs, and other
surface water bodies sewage sludge
management facilities; and the
location(s) at which hazardous waste
enters the treatment plant by thick, rail.
or dedicated pipe. This provision
reflects the topographic map
• requirements of § 122.21(0(7), and is
more specifically designed to include
features most likely to be found at a
• P01W.
• Proposed § 122.21QJ(1)(lx) would
require the applicant to submit a
process flow diagram or schematic,
together with a nairadvedesmiption.
The permit writer uses this information
to develop secondary treatment and
water quality-based permit
• requirements, as well as other
applicable permit conditions.
Proposed S 122.21fl1(1)(x) would
require information about bypasses,
which are intentional diversions of
wastestreazns from any part of a
treatment plant. Regulations governing
bypasses are set forth at 40 Q ’R
122.41(m). Facilities experiencing
bypasses are required to estimate the
frequency, duration, and volume of
bypass incidents, and the reasons why
bypasses have occurred. Information on
bypasses is used by the permit writer to
develop appropriate permit limits and
imd1tlons for these discharges.
Proposed § 122.ZIQX1)(xtJ would
require general Information regarding
discharges to waters of the United States
as well as discharges to destinations
other than surface waters. This
information enables the permit writer to
account for all wastewater that enters
the P01W, regardless of whether or not
it is discharged directly to receiving
waters. From a watershed permitting
standpoint, permitting authorities may
use this information to identify flows
that Individually or collectively may
have an Impact on the watershed.
whether or not they are discharged
directly into waters of the U.S.
If any effluent is discharged to surface
Impoundments with no discharges to
waters of the U.S.. the applicant would
report the location of each surface
Impoundment, the annual average daily
volume discharged to each surface
impoundment, and whether the
discharge is continuous or intermittent.
If effluent is applied to the land, the
applicant must provide the site location.
the site size, and the annual average
daily volume of effluent applied. The
applicant must also state whether land
application Is continuous or
intermittent. This information alerts the
permit writer to the potential for point
source discharges to arise from land
application sites under certain
circumstances, such as cold weather or
high volume discharges. or from surface
impoundments.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(1)(xi) would also
require the applicant to report whether
wastewater is discharged to another
treatment works, the means by which
the wastewater is transported, the
aveidge daily flow rate to that facility,
and information identifying the
receiving facility. The applicant must
also identify the orgimf tlon
transporting the licrk rge, if other than
the applicant. The permit writer needs
this information in order to track the
wastewater and verify the tralisfer.
Finally, proposed § 122.21(j)(1)(xi)
would require information on other
types of disposal, such as underground
percolation or Injection. These typos of
disposal may result in the transfer of
pollutants to waters of the U,S. through
underground flows, and thus are of
interest both to the permit writer in
writing the permit and to the permitting
authority in designing watershed
protection strategies.
Proposed § 122.21(jXl)(xii) would
require the applicant to report whether
the p01W is located on a Federal Indian
Reservation, discharges toe receiving
water that is on a Federal Indian
Reservation or upstream of a”-’
eventually flows through a? a
Indian Reservation. This inL .. . ..at
enables the permit writer to identi
proper permitting authority and
applicable requirements, includin
applicable water quality standard
Proposed § 122.21Q)(1)(xili) wo
require the applicant to provide
information about any cheduied
facility improvements. Improvem
the facility may change its flow o
removal efficiency, necessitating
permit modification. The permit’
may modify the permit when the
Improvement is complete, or may
Include alternate limits In the per
that would take effect upon comp
of the improvement.
The current application form,
Standard Form A. requests certair
Information about required
Improvements including Informai
dates for completion of the prelirr
plan, completion of the final plan
awarding of contract, and site
acquisition. EPA is proposing to
these requirements but solicits cc
on their usefulness. Standard For
also requires the applicant to ides
the authority imposing the impro
and the general and specific actio
codes. The Agency propose’ ‘e
this requirement because L
have indicated that this informati
unnecessary to writing the permit
2. Information on Effluent Discha
Proposed § 122.21(j)(2) of today
would require all POTWs that dis
effluent to waters of the U.S. to pr
specific Information for each owl
through which effluent is dischar
- surface waters, excluding CSO ou
This Information would be report
Questions 17,18; and 19 of the B
Application Information part of
proposed Form ZA. The applican
would be required to submit the
• Information required for each out
Proposed § 122.21(j}(2)(i) wouli
require general information about
outfall. The applicant must specii
outfall number, location, latitude
longitude, distance from shore (if
applicable), distance below surfa
applicable), and average daily flo
millIon gallons per day). EPA ent
latitude and longitude points intc
water quality data base ST0R .
of the location of water discharge
developed to examine the relatioi
between NPDES outfalls and othr
of concern, such as drinkinp- --te
intake points or sensitive e
This Information is also uset.
establish water quality-based effl
limits appropriate for the particul
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 234 I Wednesday, December 6, 1995. / Proposed Rules
62559
receiving water. The locational data
requested by this question also supports
the Watershed Protection Approach,
because It provides Federal and State
environmental managers with
information they need to geographically
locate discharge points.
Latitude and longitude would be
required to be reported to the nearest
second. This is consistent with EPA’s
Locational Data Policy (LDP) (See
“Locational Date Policy Implementation
Guidance. Guide to the Policy (March
1992)”). In accordance with this policy,
all latitude/longitude measurements in
Agency data collection should have
accuracies of better than 25 meters (i.e..
roughly, one second).
Proposed § 122.21Q)(2)(I) would
require information about the interval
and duration of effluent discharges that
are seasonal or perlod1c Such
discharges arise from certain conditions.
usually related to the process at an
industrial user, whereby the industrial
user discharges Intentionally at
specified times following treatment. For
each outfall with an intermittent
discharge, the applicant must report the
annual frequency, duration, flow, and
the months in which the discharge
occurs. The permit writer uses this
Information to develop permit limits
that reflect the intermittent nature of
such discharges.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(2)(i) would also
require the applicant to specify whether
the outfall Is equipped with a diffuser
and the type of diffuser (e.g.. high-rate)
used. The permit writer uses this
information to make mixing zone
calculations. (See “Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-based
Toxics Control,” EPA/505/2—90—O01,
March 1991.)
Most POTWs discharge treated
effluent to surface waters such as
streams or rivers. Proposed
5 122.21(j)(2)Ui) solicits information that
describes and identifies the receiving
waters into which each outfall
discharges. Information about the type
of receiving water Is useful to the permit
writer because mixing zones and
wasteload allocations may be calculated
differently for different types of
receiving waters.
This provision would also require the
name of the watershed, the Soil
Conservation Service watershed code,
the name of the State management
basin, and the United States Geological
Survey hydrologic code. This locational
information supports the Watershed
Protection Approach, by providing
Federal and State environmental
managers with a means of locating
dlschargers within the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service watershed
categorization system, a State’s river
basin categorization system. and the
U.S. Geological Survey cataloging
scheme. Some States, as well as EPA
Regions, are implementing a basin
management approach to watershed
protection and will require the
information requested by this question.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(2)(iii) would
require information on the level of
treatment for discharges from each
outfalL The CWA requires POTWs, with
some exceptions, to treat influent to the
level of secondary treatment prior to
discharge. Secondary treatment Is
defined at 40 CFR 133.102 in terms of
five-day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD,), total suspended solids (SS or
TSS). and pH. Part 133 allows
adjustments to the secondary treatment
requirements for POTWs that meet
certain criteria. In addition, some,
POTWs are subject to requirements for
“treatment equivalent to secondary
treatment,” as described in § 133.105.
Finally, some POTWs may have more
advanced tevels of treatment necessary,
for example. to meet water-quality based
standards for certain pollutants, such as
nitro?en and phosphorous.
This provision would require data on
design removal efficiencies for BODg
and SS. !nformatiQn on these parameters
is necessary In order for the permit
writer to set pollutant limits that
accurately reflect the pollutant removal
that the POTW can achieve. It may also
alert the permitting authority to the
need for improvements to the treatment
facility.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(2)(iii) would also
require information on disinfection,
which usually follows secondary or
advanced treatment end which destroys
bacteria, viruses, and other pathogens in
the wastewater. Disinfection most
commonly occurs through chlorination.
Many POTWs also dechlorinate their
effluent prior to discharge because
excessive free chlorine in a wastewater
discharge can cause aquatic toxicity In
the receiving water.
3. Effluent Monitoring for Specific
Parameters
The purpose of proposed § 122.21(j)
and proposed FormiA is to provide the
permit writer with the minimum
information necessary to issue to a
POTW an NPDES permit that contains
effluent limitations consistent with the
goals of the CWA. EPA recognizes that
the quality of a POTW’s effluent
depends on several factors, such as the
number and type of industrial users of
the POTW. and that not all POTWs need
to report the same information to ensure
developing NPDES permits to achieve
designated uses of the Nation’s waters.
Hence, EPA proposes a tiered approach
to collect needed effluent monitoring
lnformatlon
The Agency proposes to require all
POTWe to report effluent monitoring
Information for the 17 parameters listed
at proposed 40 GR Part 122. Appendix
J. Table 1 (“Effluent Parameters For All
POTWs”) (see also proposed Form 2A.
Basic Application Information, question
19). These parameters have a high
likelihood of being present in most
POTW effluents.
EPA Is proposing to require additional
reporting of pollutant-specific date for
POTWs with a design flow greater than
or equal to 1.0 mgd POTWs that have
or are required to have a pretreatment
program: and other POTWs required to
provide this information to the
permitting authority. In general, the
pollutants for which additional data
would be required are those for which
there aze State water quality standards,
other than dioxin, asbestos, and
“priority pollutant” pesticides. Thus,
the Agency would require, at a
minimum, data on those pollutants
listed at proposed 40 CFR Part 122,
Appendix J, Table 2 (“Effluent
Parameters For Selected POTWs and
Treatment Works Treating Domestic
Sewage”) (see also proposed Form 2A.
Part A. Supplemental Application
Information: Expanded Effluent
Testing). The Agency would not require
data, unless otherwise specified by the
permitting authority, on those
pollutants listed at proposed 40 CFR
Part 122, Appendix J. Table 3 (“Other
Parameters for Treatment Works
Treating Domestic Sewage And Selected
POTWs”).
Proposed § 122.21(j)(3) would require
thaI data be separately provided for each
outfall through which treated sanitary
effluent is discharged to waters of the
United States. Further, EPA recognizes
that a POTW’s effluent may have similar
qualities at more than one of its outfalls.
EPA thus proposes to allow applicants
to provide the effluent data from only
one outfall as representative of all such
outfalls, where two or more outfalls
with substantially identical effluents,
and with the approval of the permitting
authority on a case-by-case basis. For
outfalls to be considered substantially
Identical, they should, at a minimum, be
located at the same plant. be subject to
the same level of treatment, and have
passed through the same types of
treatment processes. The Agency solicits
comment on.this approach and,
particularly, on whether data should be
separately collected from all such
outfalls. Alternatively, should
applicants generally be encouraged to
follow this approach rather than
-------
62560 Federal Register / VoL 60. No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed_Rules
selectively approved on a case-by-case
basis?
EPA proposes that effluent and
monitonng data submitted to the
permitting authority meet the following
conditions:
1. Maximum Peilod of Sam pie
Collection: All data summarized In
response to these questions Is proposed
to be collected within a 3-year period
preceding the permirappLication date.
2. Minimum Number of Doily Sample
Analyses: Results from a minimum of
three separate daily sample analyses
(pollutant scans) are proposed to
accommodate data needs for each
analyte on which information is
requested. Additional samples might be
required on a case-by-case basis.
3. Seasonal Considerations: For most
POTWs, EPA expects that the three, or
more, sets of results for daily sample
analyses summarized in response to
these information needs would
represent typical daily discharges
occurring during at least three different
calendar seasons. For most applicants.
EPA proposes to require that a
minimum 014 months and a maximum
- of 8 months separate at least one pair of
the daily sample analysis results
Included in the summary. Applicants
unable to meet this time requirement
due to. for example, periodic,
discontinuous, or seasonal discharges
could obtain alternative guidance on
this requirement from their permitting
authority. Permitting authorities might
altar this requirement to address
considerations of specific POTWs.
4. Testing Methods: Sampling and
analysis is proposed to be conducted in
accordance with methods approved
under 40 CFR Part 138. Applicants
would be expected to use methods that
enable pollutants to be detected at levels
adequate to meet water quality-based
standards. Where no approved method
con detect a pollutant at the water
• quality-based standards level,.
applicants would be expected to use the
most sensitive approved method. lithe
applicant believed that an alternative
method should be used (e.g.. due to
matrix interference), the applicant
would need to obtain prior approval
from the permitting authority, lIen
alternative method approved In
accordance wIth 40 G’R Part 138 Is
specified In the existing permit, thi
applicant would be expected to use that
method unless otherwise directed by the
permitting authority. When no approved
analytical method exists, an applicant
could use a suitable method and
provide a desa’lption of the method.
“Suitable method” means a method that
Is sufficientLy sensitive to measure as
close to the water quality-based
standard as possible. The permit writer
needs to know which testing methods
are used in order to assess the technical
validity of the results.
5. Doily Samples: For most POTWs,
sampling is proposed to be conducted
using composite samples mixed on a
flow-proportional basis over a 24-hour
period from at least eight sample
aliquots (100 ml minimum) collected
using an automated sample collection
device. The flow-proportional basis
would involve either varying the
intervals between the collection of equal
volume samples or varying the sample
volumes collected over equal interval
collection periods. The reason for using
automated samplers is that they are
designed to make the necessary
adjustments according to the rate of
flow.
For POTWs where automated sample
collection devices are not available, it is
proposed that appropriate daily
composite samples for analysis would
be produced by mixing at least four
sample aliquots (100 ml minimum).
each collected to represent typical
segments of the operating day effluent
flows.
Because pH. temperature. cyanide.
total phenols, residual chlorine, oil and
grease, and bacterial indicators cannot
be properly sampled by continuous
sampling devices, summarized results
for each daily analysis are proposed to
be based on individual analysis of a -
minimum of four grab samples collected
to represent typical effluent flows over
the operating day. A grab sample has
100 ml minimum volume, collected
over 15 minutes or less.
For effluents from treatment ponds or
other Impoundments that have retention
times of greater than 24 hours. single
grab samples (100 ml minimum
collected over 15 minutes or less) would
be considered adequate to represent
daily conditions for all analytes
reported.
6. Maximum Data Summarization
Requirements: EPA recognizes that not
all analytes are sampled and analyzed at
the same frequency for effluents from a
single POTW or across all POTWe. EPA
thus proposes that summarized results
for analytes should Include all data
collected over the precedIng three-year
period, ending the calendar quarter
preceding the permit application date
(providing, for example. a total of 3
annual samples or 12 quarterly samples
summarized per analyte, as well as any
other samples taken by the applicant).
For those analytes sampled and
analyzed at monthly or more frequent
intervals. EPA proposes that applicants
only summarize and report data
collected over a single one-year period
(e.g.. providing a summary of 12 -
monthly samples, together with any
other samples taken during that pe
per analyte). The one-year period
included In this data summarization
interval would end the calendar quarter
preceding the permit application date.
Applicants would be required to
indicate for each analyte the number of
samples summarized and whether each.
summary represents a one or three year
summarization period.
7. All Data Must Be Reported: For
each analyte. EPA proposes that all
samples conducted and analyzed in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 136 during
the reporting period be reported (i.e.,
included with all other data for the
period reported). regardless of whether
or not they were required by the
permitting authority or these proposed
regulations.
8. Data Must Be Summarized: For
each analyte, EPA proposes that
applicants report the maximum daily
discharge, expressed either as
concentration or mass, of all of the
samples reported. Applicants would
also report the average daily discharge.
expressed either as concontra : n or
mass, of all the samples repor.:d..
The Agency is considering requiring
applicants to report only concentration
numbers on the application or,
alternatively, requiring that appLici
who wish to report mass also provk
flow Information used In calcu!
mass figures reported. Thu
would be required to rept
rate used in calculating tni ..
daily discharge and the avera
the flow rates used in calculating
average daily dischar e.
Some States may wish to have
individual pollutant data reports, rather
than summary data, from applicants,
either from all applicants or on a case-
by-case basis. in addition to or instead
of the summary data required by
proposed § 122.21(j)(3). States would be
encouraged to obtain this information in
the m nii r considered most suitable to
their needs.
9. Existing Data May Be Reported:
Where the applicant has existing data
for a given pollutant, and where such
data meet the conditions described
above, EPA proposes to allow the use of
such data in lieu of data collected solely
for the purpose of the permit
applicatIon. 11. for example. the
applicant ware to have pollutant data
from two samples. only one morn
sample would be needed to meet the
minimum requirement of three samples.
assuming that other conditions weiv
met. Also, where such data have
previously been reported to the
permitting authority, the permitting
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 F Wednesday , December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
62561
authority could waive such
requirements as having been satisfied.
The Agency proposes the above
conditions in an effort to be clear about
the nature of what needs to be reported.
Accordingly. the Agency solicits
comment on whether these conditions
are sufficiently clear, on the one hand.
or wl ether they are overly restrictive,
on the other.
The Agency also solicits comment on
each of the particular conditions
described above. The Agency is
particularly interested in comment on
two of these conditions: whether three
pollutant scans is the appropriate
number to require; and whether the
three-year requirement for reporting test
data should be waived, as proposed,
where sampling for pollutants is done
on a monthly basis.
The analytical data proposed to be
reported would result from a variety of
analytical methods, with detection
limits ranging from less than I ppb to
more than 10 ppb. The toxic analytes
that are of most concern at low
concentrations are primarily analyzed
by gas chromatography (GC). gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry
(GC/MS). inductively coupled plasma
emission spectrometry (ICP), and atomic
absorption spectrometry (AA), and high
resolution capillary column gas
chromatography/high resolution mass
spectrometry (HRGCfHRMS). These
methods have different numeric
analytical endpoints, based upon
detection (e.g., method detection limit)
or quantification (e.g.. minimum level)
levels. In addition, the wide latitude of
data reporting definitions and
conventions in use in various regulatory
programs complicates the generation
and interpretation of analytical data
reported with this proposal.
In order for permit writers to develop
appropriate permit requirements. they
must be able to establish whether a
pollutant is present and. whether a
reasonable potential for environmental
impairment exists, as defined by water
quality standards and criteria. To
properly make such determinations,
permit writers require more complete
data and documentation than has been
previously supplied with the
application form, because any ambiguity
increases the likelihood that the permit
writer will need to include in the permit
limits that are near or below 10 ppb or,
alternatively, additional monitoring
requirements for those pollutants for
which the data are ambiguous.
Thus, ft Is in the best interests of both
the applicant and the permitting
authority that the proposed rule would
require that the method detection limit
(MDL), minimum level (ML), or other
designated method endpoint, together
with Identification of the corresponding
analytical methods used be stated in the
permit application. Along with this
Information, the proposal would require
applicants to submit pollutant data
based upon actual sample values, In
other words, even where test values are
below the detection or quantification
level of the method used, the actual data
value should be reported, rather than
reporting “non-detect” (“ND”) or “zero”
(“0”) in such Instances. If the endpoint
of the method used is reported along
with the actual sample results, the
permitting authority will be able to
determine If the data is in the “non-
detect” range or “below quantification”
ran_ge.
The Agency has provided guidance to
the applicant in the proposed Form 2A
instructions in order to minimi the
conditions that lead to inaccurate
sampling data. The Agency proposes
that the permit applicant: (1) alert its
laboratory to the analytical and
detection limit requirements and thor
expectations for documentation: and (2)
report the necessary documentation to
ensure that the permit writer is fully
informed as to the methods used and
the results obtained. For more detailed
information concerning analytical issues
(acceptable methods, effluent-specific
detection limits, and documentation of
data and analytical problems),
applicants should refer to the
“Guidance on Evaluation, Resolution,
and Documentation of Analytical
Problems Associated with Compliance
Monitoring”, EPA 821—B--93—OO1, June
1993.
a. Pollutant Data Reporting
Requirements for All POTWs
EPA has identified certain pollutants
that are commonly found in POTW
effluents, regardless of size, and for
which permit limits may be necessary to
prevent adverse effects on receiving
waters. Proposed § 122.21(j)(3) would
require each applicant, regardless of
size, to provide monitoring information
for the pollutants listed in proposed
Appendix J, Table 1. These include the
conventional pollutants (defined, at 40
CFR 401.16, as biochemical oxygen
demand, total suspended solids, pH,
focal coliform. and oil and grease), as
well as other parameters that are
common to domestic wastestreams,
such as ammonia (and other nie ogen
compounds). and compounds of other
origin, such as chlorine (which is used
for disinfection during the treatment
process).
The complete list is, as follows:
Flow
Temperature
Bacterial Indicators (E. coil, Enterococci,
Focal coliform)
5-day biochemical oxygen demand
(BODsor CBOD,J
Chlorine (total residual, TRC)
Kjeldahl nitrogen (total organic as N)
Oil and Grease
Total dissolved solids
Total suspended solids
pH
Phosphorus (PO.r. ’P)
Dissolved oxygen
‘Hardness (as CaCO 3 )
Ammonia (as N)
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)
The secondary treatment regulations
at 40 CFR Part 133 describe the
minimum level of effluent quality that
must be attained in terms of BOD 3 (or
CBOD 5 ), TSS. and pH, and specify
technology-based criteria for each
parameter. Control of DOD 5 (or CBOD 5 )
is necessary to ensure sufficient’
dissolved oxygen in the receiving water
to protect aquatic life; DOD, (or CBOD ,)
is also a key parameter in biological
treatment systems. Extremely high
levels of suspended solids in the
POTW’s influent can interfere with
— POTW operations. High TSS levels in
the effluent also block light in the
receiving water and inhibit
photosynthesis. Permit writers use
information for these, as well as all
other parameters listed above, to set
appropriate water quality-based limits
for permit applicants. In instances
where POTWs have been allowed to
substitute chemical oxygen demand
(COD) or total organic carbon (TOC) for
DOD,, In accordance with 40 CFR
133.104, applicants would report the
substituted parameter.
EPA has determined that enterococci
and H. coil are better biological indicator
organisms than fecal coliform. From
1973 through 1982, the Agency studied
marine and freshwater bathing beaches.
These studies reveal strong correlations
between instances of gastrointestinal
illness and concentrations of certain
indicator organisms at these beaches.
That is, in both fresh and marine waters,
enterococci and E. coil were strongly
correlated with gastroenteritis. (For
more Information on this study, see
“Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Bacteria—1986,” EPA44O/5—84—002,
January 1986.)
Because high numbers of these
organisms in receiving water indicate an
increased potential for human
gastrointestinal illness following
swimming or ingestion. and because
both enterococci and H. coli are
contained in all domestic sewage,
Indicating the potential for
gastrointestinal Illness, EPA is
-------
62562 Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
proposing to require all POTWs to test
for these biological indicator org ’ni 1I.a
in their discharged effluents. The
Agency Is also proposing. however, to
allow the use of fecal cohform as the
biological indicator for those applicants
where the applicable permitting
authorities have not yet switched to
mcinitonng requirements for enterococol
and £ coil. EPA solicits comments on
allowing the use of focal coliform In
cases where perrnftting authorities have
not switched from using focal coliform
as the pathogen indicator. The Agency
also solicits comment as to whether
testing for enterococci and E. coil
should be required at all before the
Agency has developed approved test
methods for these parameters.
The Agency proposes that all POTWs
report chlorine and ammonia levels.
EPA’s experience with toxicity
identification evaluations (TIEs) at
many POTWs indicate that chlorine and
ammonia frequently cause effluent
toxicity. Additional studies also reveal
frequent adverse effects by these
compounds within receiving waters.
Therefore, at POTWs that chlorinate
their wastowaters without subsequent
dechlorination prior to discharge,
chlorine may be present in
concentrations sufficient to cause
tonicity in receiving waters. Ammonia,
which is common in nearly all sanitary
sewage, is highly toxic to aquatic life in
ft form. The ratio of the
relatively toxic un-ionized ammonia
form (NH 3 ) compared with the
considerably less toxic ionized
ammonium form (NH 4 I is dependent
on pH and temperature.
Chlorine and ammonia are listed in
many State water quality standards, and
“The Quality Criteria for Water 1986’
(EPA 44015—86—001. also known as the
“Cold Book’) lisle criteria for both
pollutants. Chlorine and ammonia can
react to form chioramines, which can be
toxic, and are more persistent in the
aquatic environment than elemental
chlorine. In estuaries or ocean water,
broTn mines can also form. Analytical
methods recommended for the
quantification of total residual chlOrine
(TRC) also indicate the presence of
chloramines and broi,inmines. Ifs
disinfectant other than chlorine is used,
the permitting authority has the
discretion to require additional data for
that disinfectant. If alternative
disinfection technologies are used, the
applicant must submit a description of
the alternate process.
Depending on the type of treatment
provided, different sampling regimes
may be appropriately required. For
example, POTWs that do not use
chlorination for disinfection, and do not
otherwise use chlorine in their
treatment processes, perhaps should not
be required to sample for chlorine. The
Agency solicits comment on whether to
waive chlorine data from such POTWs.
EPA aiterla for nitrate, nitrite, and
phosphorus are published In The Gold
Book. Because these parameters are
prevalent In most POTN effluents and
because of their impacts on receiving
waters, EPA is proposing to require all
applicants to test for them. Nitrogen and
phosphorus are often limiting nutrients
in marine and fresh water systems.
respectively. Excessive loadings of
nitrogen (discharged as ammonia
(Including ammonlum), nitrate, nitrite,
and organic nitrogen) and phosphorus
(discharged as phosphate) can stimulate
algae growth, interfering with shoreline
aesthetics and recreational uses. In
addition, decaying algae can reduce
dissolved oxygen concentrations, thus
impairing the aquatic environment At
concentrations not typically
encountered in surface waters, nitrate Is
toxic to fish.
Today, EPA proposes monitoring and
reporting requirements for total nitrate
plus nitrite. Kjeldahl nitrogen, and total
phosphate. EPA Is proposing to request
the reporting of nitrate plus nitrite,
combined rather than separately.
because the chemical equilibrium
between the two forms can change
rapidly when chemical conditions in
effluents and receiving waters differ.
Such differences can cause
concentration ratios between these two
nitrogen oxide forms to change rapidly
shortly after effluents enter receiving
waters. Thus, separately knowing the
effluent concentrations of nitrate and
nitrite often bears little significance to
their likely concentrations shortly after
discharge into receiving waters.
Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations (a
measure of organic nitrogen
concentrations) are requested to allow
permit writers to evaluate the total
concentration and total mass of nitrogen
discharged. determined by summing
concentrations of discharged ammonia.
nitrate plus nitrite, and Kjeldahl
nitrogen. when all are reported in
equivalent nitrogen concentrations
(NH 3 -N and N0 2 +N0 3 —N). Phosphate
is to be reported in equivalent
phosphorus concentrations (P0.—P)
Concentrations of elemental phosphorus
in most effluents occur at less than
potentially toxic levels; consequently,
no reporting requirements are proposed
for elemental phosphorus.
The Gold Book also provides criteria
values on concentrations of oil and
grease. Concentrations of oil and grease
sufficient to create a sheen on the
receiving water not only affect aesthetic
qualities of these waters, but may also
reduce the re .aeratlon rate of the
receiving waters, potentially
contributing to dissolved oxygen sag
problems. 011 and grease may also
indicate the presence of other high-
molecular-weight organic pollutants of
concern, because they are often
discharged with or act as a sink for such
pollutants. Finally, oil and grease
interfere with POTW operations.
Therefore, today’s proposal includes
monitoring and reporting requirements
regarding concentrations of oil and
grease.
Standard Form A currently requires
applicants to test for most of the
parameters discussed above. Today EPA
is proposing to delete reporting
requirements for the following
parameters, which are currently
included on the list for which sampling
is required on Standard Form A:
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Fecal Streptococci
Sattleable matter
Total Coliform Bacteria
Total Organic Carbon
Total Solids
EPA is proposing to delete chemical
oxygen demand (COD) and total organic
carbon (TOC) because biochemical
oxygen demand (BOO 5 or CBOD,) Is
generally more relevant to municipal
treatment systems. EPA Is proposing to
delete settleable matter and total solid
because there is considerable overlap
between these parameters and total
suspended solids and total dissolved
solids. The Agency believes that the two
selected parameters provide sufficient
information to permit writers, Finally.
the Agency proposes to drop reporting
requirements for fecal streptococci and
total coliform bacteria because the
Agency believes that the selected
pathogens (E. coil, enterococci: and fecal
coliform) are better indicators for risk.
The Agency requests comments on its
proposal to delete the above Standard
Form A parameters from the proposed
application requirements.
In addition to the parameters
discussed above, Standard Form A
requires that POTWs indicate the
presence of (but not provide
quantitative data for) certain pollutants.
If known. Such pollutants indude
metals, as well as other toxic and non.
conventional pollutants. The Agency is
proposing to require that some POTWs
sample and report on certain toxic
(priority) pollutants, as described in the
discussion, “Reporting of Additional
Pollutants for Some PO ’fl,Vs” (at
IILB.3.b). The Agency is proposing,
however, not to include POTW
reporting requirements for the following
pollutants listed on Standard Form A:
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 234 I Wednesday. December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
62563
Bromide
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfide
‘ujuminum
Barium
Boron
Cobalt
Iron -
Manganese
Titanium
Tin
Algicides
Chlorinated Organic Compounds
Pesticides
Surfactants
Radioactivity
A number of these parameters
(including bromide, chloride, boron,
cobalt, iron, manganese. titanium, and
tin) are proposed for deletion because
they are relatively less to,dc than
priority polluitants for which the Agency
is proposing to require testing (see.
“Reporting of Additional Pollutants for
Some POTWs” (at IILB.3.b)); and the
levels of these pollutants in most
municipal discharges am low. EPA is
proposing to delete algicides. pesticides,
and chlorinated organic compounds
because the Agency does not believe it
is relevant to ask for information about
these contaminants at this level of
generality.
EPA considered, but does not Include
us part of today’s proposal. requirements
that all applicants test end report on
sulfide and sulfate concentrations in
effluents. Sulfide is of concern because
the anaerobic decomposition of sewage
and other naturally deposited organic
material is a major source of hydrogen
sulfide. EPA considered proposing
monitoring requirements for sulfate
because high sulfate concentrations,
which are caused by sewer coh,osion,
are converted anaerobically to hydrogen
sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide is toxic to
aquatic life; it also biologically
reoxidizes on sewer walls that are
exposed to air, forming sulfuric acid
that corrodes the concrete of the sewer
channels. It was considered that, based
on this monitoring information, the
permit writer could set permit limits for
sulfide and sulfate or to require
appropriate best management practices.
These monitoring requirements.
however, were not included as part of
today’s proposed requirements because
of the view that sulfide is rapidly
converted to sulfate In aerobic waters,
which rapidly dissipates its toxic risk.
In most instances, maintAining
monitoring requirements and permit -
limits for dissolved oxygen to maintain
ttainable uses of receiving waters will
adequately safeguard receiving waters
from toxic risks due to sulfide or sulfate
potentially contained in effluents.
Regarding corrosivity within the sewer
system, the Agency believes that, In
general, the POTW is In a better position
than the permit writer to address such
concerns. Special considerations may
lead to the requirement that some
applicants submit analytical results for
these chemicals, as determined on case-
by-case basis. EPA invites comment on
these conclusions.
The Agency also considered testing
for surfactants, but Is not proposing to
require such testing as part of this rule
because: most POflA s do not discharge
surfactants at toxic levels; the Agency
has not developed water quality criteria
for surfactants; and sources am difficult
to control. In cases where surfactants lit
municipal wastestreams occur at toxic
levels, the Agency believes that whole
effluent toxicity (WET) testing should
reveal any toxicity arising from
surfactants. EPA invites comment on
this approach. -
The Agency also considered including
monitoring requirements for three
additional nonconventional pollutants:
aluminum, barium, and fluoride;
because of their regular appearance in
analytical results from the numerous
pollutant scans reviewed during
preparation of the proposed rule and
because published criteria exist for
these three conventional pollutants. But
such requirements have not been
included on the proposed rule for the
following reasons;
(1) Toxicity problems related to
excess aluminum concentrations,
especially for aquatic organisms, occur
primarily in acidic receiving waters
(most often in waters with pH less than
6.0) having low hardness levels (i.e.,
concentrations of calcium less than 2.0
mg/I). The majority of effluent water
analyses reviewed did not contain
sufficient aluminum concentrations to
likely impair beneficial uses of receiving
waters;
(2) Although barium regularly
appeared in the pollutant scans of
effluents reviewed by EPA, the
concentrations reported in all samples
remained below the 1.0 mg/I Gold Book
criterion value for barium in domestic
water supplies; and
(3) According to the 1972 “Blue
Bâok”, potentially adverse physiological
effects due to excess fluoride
concentrations increase with increasing
environmental temperatures.
Consequently. recommended criteria for
fluoride range from 1.4 to 2.4 mg/I for
average annual air temperatures of 50 to
91°F. Concentrations for the majority of
reported results from the many
pollutant analyses reviewed by EPA
revealed that although fluoride was a
regular constituent of effluents, in the
majority of the instances it occurred at
concentrations less than suggested Blue
Book criteria.
At this time, based on information
currently available to EPA,
concentrations of aluminum, barium,
and fluoride in the majority of effluents
are generally less than those necessary
to produce significant risk for beneficial
uses of receiving water. As such. EPA
condudes at this time that it is
unwarranted to require all dischargers
to monitor for these chemicals as part of
the municipal application process. -
Individual permit writers can,
nevertheless, require analysis of any or
all of these chemicals, wherever
treatment works or environmental
considerations suggest that such
requirements are warranted. Further,
EPA intends to continually review this
conclusion as more effluent monitoring
results become available, and continues
to seek informed input from outside
EPA on this decision.
b. Reporting of Additional Pollutants for
Some POTWs
As discussed above, the Agency
proposes to require all POTWs to report
Information on pollutant parameters
commonly associated with POTW
effluents. Proposed § 122.21(j)(3) (see
also, proposed Part A in the
Supplemental Application Information
part of Form ZA) requires the reporting
of additional parameters listed in
proposed Appendix J, Table 2, by those
POTWs that the Agency believes are
most likely to discharge toxic pollutants
to receiving waters. Toxic pollutants
may interfere with POTW performance
or pass through the POTW to receiving
waters, thus potentially causing adverse
water quality impacts.
Certain POTWs discharge toxic
organic and Inorganic pollutants
primarily as a result of contributions
from non-domestic sources. Section
122.2 1(j)(3)(iii) of today’s proposal
requires the applicant to submit
monitoring data for the pollutants listed
-in proposed Appendix J, Table 2, ii the
POTW meets any one of the following
criteria: (1) The POTW has a design flow
rate equal to or greater than 1.0 mgd; (2)
the POTW has a pretreatment program
or is required to have one under 40 CFR
Part 403; or (3) the POTW is otherwise
required to submit this data by the
permitting authority.
POTWs with a design flow equal to or
greater than 1.0 mgd are designated as
“major” POTWs by the Agency. EPA
estimates that roughly 25 percent of the
approximately 16,000 POTWs
nationwide have design flows of at least.
-------
02584 Federal a sterF VoL 60. No. 34 I Wednesday. December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
1.0 mgd. The Agency has found that
major POTWs have a high potential to
disehn,ge to,dc pollutants because of the
strong likelihood that they receive
Industrial wastewatem and bw’wt , of
the large number eu lng
the treatment works kom eutiues
sources. Therefore, the A y believes
that it is necessary to coiled toxic
pollutant data from these POTWa.
EPA also proposes to require data on
toxic pollutants hour POIWa that are
required to develop pretreatment
programs under 40 Pait . A
P01W is required to Jbu L. 9 a
pretreatment program if it rereives
discharges from dpii i indu ial
users that may intrafn u with the POTW
or pass through the ti -” ’ works.
Approximately ten pc I
(approximately 1.500) of all TWs
have or are required to develop
pretreatment pro 5 iuiis . Most IWs
with pretreatment pagrama are also
major POTWs, and so this criterion only
slightly expands the requirements of
this provision.
In addition to POTWs with design
flows greater than or equal to LO mgd
and POTWs with pzthealnhent
programs. EPA is proposing to allow the
permitting authority to require any other
P01W to submit monitming data for
some or all of the pollutants listed in
proposed Appendix J, Table 2. The
Agency would recommend that the
permitting authority require an
applicant to perform a complete or
partial pollutant sean if toxicity is
known or suspected in a POTW’s
effluent Alternatively. if the facility’s
effluent causes adverse water quality
effects, orif the POTW discharges to an
impaired receiving water, the permit
writer could require the applf t to
provide analytical results born a -
complete pollutant scan.
The permit wnter could also require
the applicant to test for these parameters
depending on the number or frmni4 . of
industrial users. EPA Is proposing to
grant the permit writer such discretion
because smaller POTWe that receive
industrial contributions also have the
potential to discharge toxic pollutants.
Although a POTW with a design flow
less than 1.0 mgd may not have as great
a volume of tardc pollutants entering its
treatment system as a larger POTW. the
impact of its industrial users could
easily be more pronounced due to other
considerations, such as smaller
treatment capacity or an affluent-
dominated receiving stream. Testing for
toxic pollutants would provide the
Information needed to write a protective
permit for such a P0TW.
The Agency solicits comments on the
9 bove criteria for determining which
POTWa must test effluent for the
pollutants In proposed Appendix 1.
Table 2. The A ncy also solicits
________ on whether other POTWs
, honld he required to sample for some
or all of time. pollutants. Alternatively.
the Ag y solicits mmant as to
whether other PalWs should be
required to provide any existing data on
these pollutants. Such data would be
important information in conducting
watershed i, .eSnui 5fltS.
The proposed approach for
determining which POTWs must submit
data on toxic polhdnnts is not the only
approach being considered by the
Agency. Among the alternatives being
considered is one that would expand
upon the approach described above, and
require toxió data from two groups of
non-pretreatment minors, each of which
includes about half of all minor POTWs.
In this approach. POTWa with a
population between 1.000 and 10.000
(and not otherwise required to report as
described above) would be required to
provide a single pollutant scan for the
Metals. Cyanide, and Total Phenols and
the Volatile Organics groups in
proposed Appendix J. Table 2. POTWs
with a population of less than 1,000
(and not otherwise required to report as
described above) would be required to
provide a single scan for certain metals
(I.e., cadmium, chromium, copper, lead.
nickel. zinc, silver, and mercury). The
Agency specifically solicits comment on
this altematIve approach. Commenters
are requested to address the suggested
cutoff points for different levels of
reporting, the pollutants for which
reporting is suggested. and the number
of samples that should be required.
EPA proposes that POTWs meeting
the three criteria enumerated above
monitor for the pollutants in proposed
Appendix J. Table 2. and any other
pollutants for which there are
establishqd State water quality
standards. Proposed Table 2 is a subset
of the priority pollutants list previously
described. As discussed in the
background discussion of this preamble,
these pollutants are regulated under the
CWA and have been identified by
Congress and/or EPA as potential
threats to human health or aquatic life.
Proposed Table 2 also includes total
phenols, a parameter commonly used as
an indicator pollutant for certain
priority pollutants. Also as discussed.
EPA and most States have developed
numeric criteria and standards for most
of these pollutants.
Proposed Appendix J. Table 2
represents pollutants that have been
identified in priority pollutant scans of
effluent from POTWs. Permit writers
will be able to use data on these
pollutants as a basis to derive
appropriate permit limits.
The Agency is proposing to not
require pollutant data for certain
priority pollutants (I.e., dioxin, asbestos,
and priority pollutant pesticides).
Available inrormatlon on the occurrence
of asbestos, dioxin, and priority
pollutant pesticides reveals that these
pollutants rarely occur at detectable
levels in POTW effluents. Absent
information to the contrary, the Agency
does not consider asbestos to be a
pollutant of concern in municipal
wastewater effluents. Dioxin, while
nearly ubiquitous. is present in such
minute amounts in those industrial
outfalls where it is known to be present
in reLatively high concentrations, that
the Agency does not believe that, in
general, it is appropriate to require
POTWs to monitor for the pollutant at
the POTW outfall, due to the high level
of dilution In municipal wastestreams.
Permitting authorities may wish to
require such monitoring on a case-by-
case basis if there is reason to believe
that dioxin may be present in
measurable amounts. To the extent that
priority pollutant pesticides. inc!u’ !-
for example, DDT and PCBs. -
municipal wastestreams, the i
believes that their presence is duL.
the most part. to background
concentrations, rather than to new
introductions by discharges to the
POTW. Where these pesticides result in
toxicity problems or where other
conditions merit, the Agency believes
that permitting authorities should
require sampling for them on a case-by-
case basis. In the alternative, the Agency
is considering adding pesticides to the
list of required pollutants in proposed
Appendix J. Table 2. The Agency
solicits cozpment on whether routine
monitoring and screening should be
required for pesticides from all POTWs
meeting the criteria of proposed
§ 122.2 1(fl(3)(Ili) or whether the
proposed approach is the appropriate
one.
EPA also solicits comment on
alternative ways to collect information
in permit application about pollutants
that occur In low levels, such as dioxin,
or that otherwise present water quality
concerns even in highly dilute effluent.
As discussed previously, the proposal
would require information about
significant industrial users from certain
POTWs so the permit writer should
have sufficient knowledge about the
potential for pass through of such
pollutants. The Agency is interested in
commenters’ views on the adequacy of
SIU identification for the purposes of
developing adequate POTW permit
limitations. Proposed § 122.21(j)(3)
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 234 1 Wednesday, December 6. 1995 / Proposed Rules
62565
iuld also require that POTWa meeting
above criteria monitor for pollutants
listed in proposed Appendix J.
Je 2. for which the State or EPA have
established State water quality
standards (see discussion in Background
section of this preamble). A number of
States have established water quality
standards for pollutants not listed as
CWA sec. 307(a) priority pollutants. For
the reasons stated in the above
paragraph, the Agency believes that It Is
appropriate to require sampling for
these pollutants, as well.
In addition. EPA considered, but is
not proposing. requiring applicants to
monitor for other pollutants, such as
those on the “Gold Book” list of Federal
Water Quality criteria, those regulated
under the Safe Drinking Water Act. or
those on data bases such as the Toxins
Release Inventory System (IRIS), the
Aquatic Toxicity Information Retrieval
data base (AQUIRE). and the Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS). The
Agency determined that adding these
other pollutants to the list of pollutants
proposed would impose additional
monitoring and reporting requirements
on the applicant. at substantial
additional cost, but without significant
‘nefit. Additionally, not all pollutants
these lists have been assigned
‘seric criteria. Moreover, available
•rmation reviewed by EPA does not
indicate that these chemicals occur with
either sufficient frequency or at high
enough concentrations in typical P01W
effluents to support their inclusion
among pollutants for which monitoring
is proposed to be uniformly required.
Under today’s proposal, in proposed
122.ZUj)(3)(v), permit writers would
have the option to require monitoring
and reporting for any other potentially
toxic chemicals for which the authority
has a reasonable basis to suspect that
such materials may be contained in
P01W effluents. Such basis could
include the presence of industrial users
known to release chemicals not
included among the pollutants for
which routine analyses ais otherwise
required. EPA invites comments on all
aspects of this proposal that would
allow for case-by-case information
requests that might otherwise extend the
time involved in streamlined permit
issuance procedures.
In addition. EPA solicits comment on
whether to require applicants to
summarize and report. as part of the
oplication process. analytical results
any toxic pollutant determined
ring the three-year period preceding
application to be a known or likely
.Lstituent of the facility’s discharge.
That is, when an applicant has reason
to know or suspect the presence of other
toxic constituents in their effluents, its
reporting requirements would not
necessarily be limited either to the
general list of toxic pollutants provided
by proposed Appendix J. Tables I and
2, or to specific monitoring
requirements placed on the applicant by
the permitting authority. EPA considers
results from toxic release inventory
(TRI) as providing one likely basis for
Information that could cause applicants
to initiate additional effluent monitoring
analyses during the application process.
Finally, the Agency is interested in
providing flexibility where POTWs can
demonstrate that the risk of occurrence
of pollutants in the discharge Is -
sufficiently small. The Agency seeks
comment on whether POTWs could be
exempted from providing information
on specific pollutants where there are
statistically valid data to allow the
permitting authority to predict the
absence of particular pollutants. In
addition, EPA solicits comments on the
appropriateness of exempting POTWs
from providing information about
qertain contaminants which are
detectable in only a smell fraction of
POTWs (e.g., less commonly occurring
metals such as antimony) and which
would not be expected to occur based
on other data about the POTW or the
Indirect discharge. -
Other approaches to collecting
pollutant data were considered for
proposal. EPA solicits comment on each
of these, as follows: -
A. Types of Industrioi Contributors
This approach would have required
monitoring for specific pollutants,
depending on the identity of industrial
users discharging to the POTW.
Although this approach was supported
by a number of commenters in the
course of our outreach efforts, it
appeared to be too difficult to
implement for non-pretreatment
POTWs. Non-pretreatment POTWs are
not required to do user inventories of,
for example, all categorical industries.
and thus would probably be unaware of
what monitoring data to provide. On the
other hand, pretreatment POTWs would
be required to provide entire priority
pollutant scans if they had only 2—3
different types of industries. The
Agency solicits comment on how.
specifically, such an approach would
work and how it would benefit
applicants and provide permit writers
with appropriate information. -
B. TR( as a Basis for Determining
Additional Pollutants for Sampling
It was suggested that we use TRI data
to determine what additional pollutants
for which to require sampling. Although
ladustrial user TRI reports are not
currently provided to POTWs by TRI.
reporting industries, such reporting
could be required. for example, through
the pretreatment program. Of course.
permit writers maf always request TRI
data from EPA. At issue is whether the
applicant should be required to provide
additional monitoring data for
pollutants reported through TRI. The
Agency solicits comment as to whether
this approach might be feasible and
whether it would provide useful
information to the permit writer that is
not otherwise available.
C. Existing Pollutant Data from SIUs
In order to obtain inforthation on
pollutants that occur in POTW
discharges In low concentrations.
permit writers could. make use of
information provided to POTWs by SIUs
during the term of the existing permit.
The Agency solicits comment on this
approach, and is particularly Interested
in whether such information could be
provided in lieu of requiring end-of-
pipe effluent data for certain pollutants
(e.g.. dioxin. pesticides, or other organic
chemicals received principally from
industrial sources).
D. Ambient Data
Another Issue considered was
whether or not to require POTWs to
provide the results of ambient
monitoring as part of the permit
application. Although some have
suggested that this information would
be helpful for implementation of the
watershed approach, States were
generally opposed to requiring POTWs
to collect ambient data. The view was
expressed that it is the permitting
authority’s responsibility to collect this
information, and not the POTW’s
responsibility to provide it.
Nevertheless, the Agency is interested
in soliciting comment as to whether
such data should be required.
E. Bioaccumu!ation Data
Although analytical methods to assess
bioaccumulation in the aquatic biota are
available, they are costly compared to
approved test methods for pollutants in
effluent. Since WEI’ tests are an indirect
indicator for human health risks, the
Agency is not proposing to require
bioaccujnulation data from POTWs.
However, such data are directly relevant
to human health risk considerations.
Therefore, the Agency solicits comment
on whether to require bioaccuznulatlon
data. Because of cost considerations, the
Agency also solicits comment as to what
tradeoffs, in terms of other types of
reporting, might make such an approach
acceptable.
-------
82386 Federal Register I VoL 50, No. 234 I Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
4. Effluent Monitoring For Whole (1) requirIng all minor Parw. not
Effluent Toxicity vezed under the above xiterla to
As discussed in the background .. submit the results of a mln 4 n um of one
section, the July 24. 1990, amelments WET ‘(It, 50 U to 0110W the permitting
to the General Pretreatipent authority to scan for minor POTWa that
require that certain POTWa DIOVirle may have toxicity pmblems and
results of whole effluent biological where a State has Identified a
toxicity testing as part of their NPDES watershed as a priority watershed,
permit application (4Q 122.2 1(j) requiring one or more WET tests for all
(1)-(3)). Such testing was required to - POTWs discharging to the watershed.
have been conducted since the Third, the Agency p
iiPD s permit reissuance or i WET tests for each out mLl ’
modification, under 40 CFR 122.62(a). tm 2nt works (not Including CSOs).
whichever o urred later. exceptions forfdentical outfalls
In today’s proposed rule, EPA to those proposed for pollutant
proposes to revise this provision. data. as discussed above.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(41 setsforth these Proposed § 122.21(j)(4) would require
revised that data be separately provided for each
are required to Identify any biological outhil through which treated sanitary
tests the aopllcant believes to have Is dIt . hn 1 ed to waters of the
conducted within three years ofthe__ United States. EPA proposes to allow
of application. the applicant, where the POTW has two
Second, as in the existing regulation, or more outfalls with substantially
the following POTWs would be required ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ effluentS diachirging to the
to conduct and provide the results of same receiving stream, and with the
whole effluent biological toxicity (WE1 aPp uvul of the permitting authority on
a.case.by-case basis, to provide the
(A) All POT’Ns with design Influent results of WET testing from only one
equal t0 or greater than one million outfall as representative of all such
outfalls. For outfalls to be considered
with apywved substantially IdenticaL they should at a
pretreatment progrems or POTWs - minimum be Located at the same
required to develop a pretreatment trS tEi fltPl5flt. be subject to the same
level of treatment end have passed
cier POTWs, asiequired by the through the same types of treatment
Director, based upon considerati on of processes. The Agency solicits i u ament
theiollowing factorm • on this approach and, particularly, on
(1) The variability of the pollutants or whether WET test data should be
pollutant parameters in the Parw separately collected from all such
effluent (based on thi. .nlrnl.speciflc outfalls.
information, the type of treatment Th. existing WET testing
- facility, and types of Industrial • requirements do not specify the number
contributors); - or frequency of tests required, the
(2) The dilution of the effluent in the number of species to be used, or
receiving water (ratio of effluent flaw to whether to provide the results of acute
rece1vin stream flow); - or chronic toxicity tests. Proposed -
• (3) Existing controls on point omen- S 122.21(J)(4) sets minimum reporting
point sources, Including total maximum requirements of four quarterly tests for
daily load calculations for the water a year, using multiple species (no less
body segment and the relative than two suede.. e.g.. fish, Invertebrate.
• contribution of the POTW; - plant). aii€f testing for acute or chronic
(4) ReceivIng stream tharactorladcs, toxicity, depending on the range of
Including possible or known water • receiving water dilution. This proposal
quality Impairment and whether the Is based in part on Agency guidance,
PO’fl Y discharges tea counital wates one and in part on Agency experience in the
• of the Great t ha or a water designated . lmulemantatlon of that guillnnrR.
as an outs’ n’ftug natural resourue; or -. fit March 1991. EPA issued guidance
(5) Other considerations (Including oestabI 1 ’ ’1ng Agency policy for WET
but not limited to the history of toxic testing protocols (see “Technical
impact and complbtnr n problems at the Support Document for Water Quality-
POTW), which the Director determin.,, Based Toxics Control (1991),” or
could cause or contribute to adverse “TSD”). In that document, tile Agency
-recommended “as a minimum that three
water quality impacts.
The Agency specifically solidts species (for example. a vertebrate, an
I unment on whether the requirement to invertebrate, and a plant) be tested
conduct WET testing should be quarterly for a minimum of a year”.(see,
extended to other POTWs. The Agency TSD p. 58). In making this
is considering several options, recommendation, the Agency explained
Including: that the use of three species is more
protective than two species since a
widerrange of species sensitivity can
measured. In practice, however, a
numbe of permitting authorities are
-only requiring the use of two species.
SIm m existing requirements for using
.three species are less common, the
Agency propose . to require the use of
“multiple species.” The Agency
proposes this as a minimum
requirement, and does not intend It as
a change in the policy recommendatlon
outlined In the TSD.
In setting a minimum frequency of
quarterly testing for a year. the Agency
Indicated that this was recommended to
adequately assess the variability of
toxicity observed in effluents, as
follows:
Below this ,nl,ibn , the chances of
toxic events Inarease. The toxicity
test result for the most sensitive of the tested
species Is considered to be the measured
toxicity for a particular effluent sample.
Ths data generation recommendations
• represent minimum testing
requirements. Since uncertainty regarding
whether or not en effluent ceusee toxic
Impact is reduced with more data. ‘A
recommends that this test &equency be
inmuased where to adequately
erases effluent variability. If less frequent
testing is required In the pensit. It Is
prefarable to use three specie . tested l ou
frequently than to test the effluent more
frequently with only a single species whose
sensitivity to the effluent Is not well
characterized. (TSD. p. 39)
It is the Agency’s understanding that
many permitting authorities currently
require quarterly testing. While other
permitting authorities require less
frequent monitoring, at least from some
facilities, in many instances such
information is being collected on a
yearly bails. This proposal would only
require one cycle of quarterly testing
within three years of the date of the
permit application (La., only once in
five years). The Agency solicits
cnlnment on whether this is an
appropriate frequency, and specifically
whether permitting authorities should
be allowed to waive quarterly testing on
a case-by-case basis. Commentors
should indicate what specific criteria
would have to be inst for such a waiver.
The current whole effluent toxicity
tasting requirements, at § 122.21(j), do
not specify whether applicants should
test for acute or chronic toxicity. An
acute toxicity test is defined as a test of
96-hours or lees In duration in which
lethality (of the test org ni m) is the
measured endpoint A chronic toxicity
test is defined as a long-term test in
which sublethal effects, such as
fertilization, growth, and reproduction,
are usually measured, in addition to
lethality. (TSD, p.4.)
-------
Federal Register / VoL 60, No. 234 / Wednesday. December 6. 1995 / Proposed Rules
62567
The Agency proposes that testing for
acute or chronic toxicity be based upon
the ratio of receiving water to effluent at
the edge of the mixing zone. The term
“mixing zone” refers to an area around
an outfall within which a State may
allow ambient concentrations above
water quality criteria levels. States may
have two or more mixing zones (e.g.. an
acute mixing zone, beyond which acute
criteria must be met, and a chronic
mixing zone, beyond which chronic
criteria must be met). Not all States
allow calculation of effluent llmltM1nnq
using mixing zones. and mixing zones
are not universafly allowed by States
that do allow use of mixing zones. For
purposes of determining whether acute
or chronic toxicity testing is
appropriate, the ratio of receiving water
to effluent should be considered at the
point nearest to the outfall where water
quality criteria are required to be met.
This proposal incorporates the
recommendations of the 1991 TSD.
which stated that applicants should
conduct acute or chronic testing based.
upon the following dilutions:
(A) Acute toxicity testing if the
dilution of the effluent Is greater than
1000:1 at the edge of the mixing zone;
(B) Acute or chronic toxicity testing if
the dilution of the effluent Is between
100:1 and 1000:1 at the edge of the
mixing zone. Acute testing may be more
appropriate at the higher end of this
range (1000:1). and chronic testing may
be more appropriate at the lower end of
this range (100:1); and
(C) Chronic testing If the dilution of
the effluent is less than 100:1 at the edge
of the mixing zone. (See TSD, pp. 5&-
59.) In order to determine the proper
dilution ratio, measurement should be
made at the point where chronic criteria
apply. Thus, where there is a chronic
mixing zone, the dilution ratio should
be measured at the edge of the chronic
niudng zone. It may be Inappropriate to
use an acute test 11 there is too little
dilution.
Although the Agency Is not proposing
to require that applicants follow these
recommendations, the Agency believes
that they are reasonable, based on the
discussion in the TSD. For example,
with regard to the use of chronic
toxicity testing where the dilution ratio
falls below 100:1, the Agency stated.
“(tjhe rationale for this recommendation
Is that chronic toxicity has been
observed in some effluents down to the
1.0 percent effect concentration.
Therefore, chronic toxicity tests,
although somewhat more expensive to
conduct, should be used directly in
order to make decisions about toxic
impact.” (TSD, p. 59.) The Agency
solicits comment as to whether these
recommendations should Instead be
added as requirements in the final rule.
The whole effluent toxicity testing
requirements that currently exist, at
§ 122.21( 1). do not specify which
information must be reported as a result
of such testing. To clarify reporting
requirements for the applicant and the
permit writer, EPA today proposes
specific reporting requirements In
§ 122.21(fl(4). First, applicants required
to perform W T tests under the
proposed rule am required to iniHc .ite
the number of tests performed since
permit reissuance and since any
mo&firntlon of the permit pursuant to
40 R 122.62(a). It ii up to the
permitting authority to determine
whether previously submitted results
provide the equivalent of the
Information proposed to be required.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(4)(v) sets forth in
detail the Information that the Agency
believes will provide the permit writer
with adequate Information to determine
whether the test was conducted in
accordance with EPA methods and
protocols and whether the reported
results are otherwise valid. The Agency
solicits comment on whether the
Information requested Is the proper
Information to require or whether other
information should be required,
Including for purposes of quality
assurance. As in the current regulatory
requirements, In conducting the testing.
applicants must use EPA.approved
methods. The Agency solicits comment
on this approach.
Where biomonitorlng date have been
submitted to the permitting authority
within three years of the permit
application, applicants would be
required to provide the dates on which
such data were submitted and a
summary of the results of each such test.
Where any WET test conducted within
three years prior to the permit
application reveals toxicity, proposed
§ 122.21(j)(4)(vi) would require that
applicants, at a minimum, provide any
information they may have on the cause
of toxicity. Further, applicants would be
required to provide written details of
any toxicity reduction evaluation
conducted. Toxicity reduction
evaluations (TREs) are used to
Investigate the causes and sources of
toxicity and identify the effectiveness of
corrective actions to reduce it. The
purpose of a IRE is to help bring
dischargers into compliance with water
quality-based whole effluent toxicity
requirements where monitoring
Indicates unacceptable effluent toxicity.
The permitting authority may require a
permittee to conduct a IRE In those
cases where the discharger Is unable to
adequately explain and immediately
correct non-compliance with a whole
affluent toxIcity permit limit or
requirement TREs may be required of
permittees under existing permits or
through a variety of other legaUy
binding mechanisms. Since the results
from TREs may have considerable
Impact in the evaluation of municipal
permit applications, this kind of
Information would need to be available
to the permit writer. It is recommended
that applicants conducting a TRE at the
time of permit application would
provide a brief summary of the status
and results from the ongoing TRE.
The Agency solicits comment on all of
the above proposed revIsions to the
existing WET test requirements.
5. IndustrIal Dlschargei. Pretreatment.
and RCRA/CERCLA Waste
Today’s proposed rule would require
applicants to provide information on
industrial (non-domestic) discharges to
the POTW, particularly discharges from
significant Industrial users (SIUs). This
Information Is to be required by
proposed § 122.21(fl(5).
Proposed § 122.21(J)(5)(l) would
require the applicant to list the total
number of significant industrial users
(SIUs) and categorical Industrial users
discharging to the POTW. to estimate
the average daily flow from these users
and from all Industrial (non-domestic)
users, and to estimate the percent of
total Influent contributed by each class
of users. This Information provides the
permit writer with a means of
determining the relative impact,
individually and collectively, of
Industrial contributions to the P01W.
As defined in 40 CFR 403.3, the term
“Industrial user” means “a source of
Indirect discharge,” which in turn Is
defined as the introduction of pollutants
Into a P01W from any non-domestic
source regulated under sec. 307(b). (c),
or (d) of the CWA. In general, this term
encompasses industrial and commercial
sources of toxic pollutants discharging
to POTWs. Commercial entities such as
hospitals, nursing homes, restaurants.
offices, and stores may be included.
A categorical Industrial user is any
discharger subject to categorical —
pretreato ent standards under 40 CFR
403.6 and 40 R Chapter!. Subchapter
N. “Significant industrial user” is
defined at 40 CFR 403.3(t) as any
categorical industrial user and any other
Industrial user that
(1) dIscharges an average of 25,000
gallons per day or more of process
wastewater to the POTW (excluding
sanitary, non-contact cooling and boiler
blowdown wastewater);
(2) contrIbutes a process wastestream
which makes up 5 percent or more of
-------
82568 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday. December 6. 1995 / Proposed Rules
the avenge dry weather hydraulic or
organic capacity of the POTW; or
(3) is desipated as such by the
contiol authority (40 C R 403.12(a))
because of a ree.tr’ 4e potential to
adversely effect the POTW’s operation
or violate preteatotent requirements.
Proposed S 122.21(J)(5)(fl) would
require POTWs with approved
pretreatment programs to describe any
suhit ie f(al mo llfir itions to the P01Ws
pretreatment program that have not yet
been approved In accoz’ 4 ” with 40
CFR 403.18. A is considering revising
the pretreatment regulations to
stze*iiilii t’ . approved program
requirements. Such revisians may make
the need for this Information
U1 7 122.21(jJ(5)(lli) would
require information an Individual
significent Industrial users (SIUs)
discharging to POTW. This provision is
____ to questions currently found on
Standard Form A. The Agency desires to
Incorporate into the final rule
•provlsions that reduce duplication of
effort. One possible way is to allow the
applicant to reference substantially
aj, i lap information about SIUs
previously submitted to the permitting
authority rather than to resubmit the
Information. The Agency solicits
cf11I IenIs on using this approach In the
final rule and suggestions of other
possible options. EPA is also
considering whether to waive, either
entirely or on a case-by-case basis, such
reporting for any POTW with an
approved pretreatment program under
40 CFR Part 403 that submits an annual
report within the year preceding its
application to the extent that the annual
report contains Information equivalent
to that required In proposed Section M.
The Agency solicits comment on this
question.
The proposed provision requires
POTWs to provide the following
Information for each SIU: Name and
mniling addres . description of the
Industrial processes affecting the
discharge. principal products and raw
materials, average daily volume of
process and non-process wastewater
,.dlscharged, and whether the SIU ii
subject to local limits or categorical
pretreatment standards. The description
of each SIU’s industrial activity and its
principal products and raw materials
alerts the permit writer to the potential
presence of pollutants in the discharge
in concentrations that may be of
concern to the POTW. and con be useful
In establishing permit limits.
Information on the average daily volume
of process wastewater discharged helps
the permit writer to estimate pollutant
loads to the POTW. Knowing the
volume of non-process wastewater
discharged will alert both the permit
writer and the P01W to the possibility
of hydraulic overload to the system, and
will help the P01W m1mmfr such
oocurrences.
Currently. Standard Form A require.
the applicant to Identify the quantities
of product manufactured and raw
materials used by each SIU. The Agency
is not proposing to require this
Information In today’s proposal because
neither the amount of production nor
the amount of raw materials used
necessarily correlates directly to the
toxicity of the waste stream. For
example, the SIU might use all of the
raw material and release little into the
waste stream. The Agency Is instead
requesting a narrative description of
products and raw materials involved In
the industrial activity.
Standard Form A also requires the
applicant to characterize each SILl’s
industrial discharge. Although this
Information may be necessary to
establish permit limits at some PCITWs,
this question appears to be unnecessary.
In many cases, the permit writer is able
to determine parameters of concern
from the principal products and raw
materials for that industrial user. In
other cases the permit writer may
request this information on a case-by-
case basis.
The proposed provision would also
require the applicant to describe any
problems at the POTW attributable to
wastewater discharged by SIUs.
Identification of such problems is
necessary to set permit limits br
pollutants that the POTW might not
adequately remove, and should i .iad to
other strategies for control of toxic
pollutants. such as: more stringent local
limits or other pretreatment
requirements: best management
practices. If the toxic pollutants appear
to be from diffuse sources; or toxicity
reduction evaluations (TREs), if toxicity
testing shows that the effluent causes an
excursion above water quality standards
In the receiving stream. Instances of
pass through and interference identified
In this step will alert the permit writer
to violations of the POTW’s Z PDES
permit.
0. Discharges From Hazardous Wuste
Sources
Proposed § 122.21(j)(6 1 would require
applicants to provide general
information concerning diccharges of
RCRA hazardous wastes to POTIVs and
discharges from hazardous waste
cleanup or remediation sites. The
purpose of this information is to alert
the permit writer to potential concerns
regarding the constituents of such
dl,rhargee.
Proposed § 122.2IQXS)(i) would
require the applicant to provide
Information about any hazardous
wastes, as defined under Subtitle C of
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), or authorized
State law, that are delivered to the
facility by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe.
This requirement doe . not apply to
RCRA hazardous wastes discharged to a
sewer system that mix with domestic
sewage before reaching the POTW,
because the Domestic Sewage Exclusion
(sec. 1004(27) of RCRA) provides that
solid or dissolved material in domestic
sewage is not solid waste as defined in
RCRA,andthereforeisnotahazarcious -
waste.
U the POTW receives RCRA
hazardous waste by truck, rail, or
dedicated pipe, the applicant must list,
for each waste received, the hazardous
waste number, quantity, and method by
which it is received. The permit writer
would use this Information to
coordinate appropriate RCRA
requirements including, where
appropriate, additional permit terms to
address such requirements. In addition.
this information will enable permitting
authorities to Identify potential impact
In the POTW’s dbtcharge.
In order to establish appropriate
permit requirements. the permit writer
also needs to be aware of wastewaters
discharged to the POTW that originate
from remedial activities conducted
under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response. Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA). the RCRA
corrective action program. or other
authorities. POTWs are sometimes used
for the disposal of wastewaters
generated during remediatlon of
CEACLA (Superfund) sites or during
RCUA corrective action activities at
industrial facilities. Paragraphs (ii)-4iv),
In proposed 5 122.21(j)(6), would
require the applicant to identify
wastewaters from remedial activities
known or expected to be received
during the life of the permit. the origin
of such wastes and the treatment, if
known, that such wastes receive prior to
entering the POTW. This information is
intended to help the permit writer
decide whether to establish additional
monitoring or permit requirements for
the effluent and sewage sludge.
7. Combined Sewer Overflows
In developing permit requirements to
meet BAT/BCT using BPJ and to meet
applicable water quality standards for
CSO discharges. the permit writer
requires certain information. To ensure
that the permit writer has the necessary
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6. 1995 / Proposed Rules
62569
information. EPA proposes to require
information that reflects the Agency’s
1994 CSO Control Policy (see discussion
in background section). ThIs paragraph
is intended to complement. and not
overlap, other reporting that POTWs
may be required to provide by the
NPDES authority in accordance with the
CSO Control Policy.
Proposed § 122.21(j)(7)(I) would
require information about the combined
sewer system (CSS), including a system
map and system diagram that describe
the relevant features of the system.
Applicants are also required to Identify
the number of CSO discharge points to
be covered by the permit application.
Because municipalities with CSOs often
have more than one treatment plant.
different POTW permits may include
different outfalls from their CSS.
Similarly, proposed § 122.21(j)(7)(lI)
would require that applicants provide
information on each outfall specifically
covered by the application. This
includes some locational information
similar to that for outfalls of treated
effluent in proposed § 122.21(J)(2).
paragraphs (I) and (II ). As discussed
previously, this sort of locational data Is
consistent with Agency policy
concerning the reporting of such
Information. It also provides permitting
authorities with a means of locating
dischargers within the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service watershed
categorization system. a State’s river
basin categorization system, and the
U.S. Geological Survey cataloging
scheme.
This provision would also require
information about any monitoring
conducted on the outfall by the
applicant and any CSO incidents that
occurred in the year previous to the
permit application. Finally, proposed
§ 122.21fl)(7)(ii)(E) would require the
permittee to identify any significant
industrial users (see discussion on
pretreatment and industrial user
information) that contribute to the CSO
and to describe any known water
quality impacts. such as beach or
shellfish bed closings and fish kills. The
Agency considers this to be a , ,dnim*I
amount of information to be provided to
the permit writer, iTl .tmuch as thern
permit writer must have adequate
Information to specifically authorize
discharges at each of the identified
outfalls.
8. Contractors
Proposed § 122.21(1118) would require
the applicant to identify all contractors
responsible for any operation or
maintenance aspects of the POTW and
to specify such contractors’
resnonslbilitles. This Information
enables the permit writer to determine
who has primary responsibility for the
operation and maintenance of the
POTW: and thus determine whether a
contractor should be included on the
permit as a co -perinittee.
9. Certification
Proposed § 122.21(j)(9) would require
the signature of a certifying official in
compliance with 40 R 122.22. whIch
requires the signature of a certifying
official on all NPDES applications. The
certification would apply to all
attAchments Identified on the
application form, as well as any others
included by the applicant
10. RevIsion to Pretreatment Program
Requirements
Existing § 122.21(j)(iv) requires
applicants with a pretreatment program
to provide a technical evaluation of the
need to revise local limits, under 40
CF’R 403.5(c)(1). Since 1990, when that
requirement was promulgated, the
Agency has received numerous requests
to change the provision to make It
effective after the date of permit
Issuance. The concern has been raised
that a POTW most needs to review Its
local limits after permit reissuance,
when new permit limits are in place.
rather than prior to permit reissuance.
The Agency agrees with these
comments and proposes to make this
change. In order to be clear, the
provision has been reworded and is
proposed to be moved to 40 R
403.8(f)(4), with the existing POTW
pretreatment program requirements. The
Agency solicits comment on this
approach.
C. Application Requirements for
7WFDS (40 CFR 122.21(q))
Under § 122.21(d)(3)(iI). POTWs and
other treatment works treating domestic
sewage (TWTDS) are currently required
to submit the sewage sludge information
listed at § 501.15(a)(2) with their permit
applications. Today EPA proposes
regulatory language at § 122.21(q) to
update the information that must be
reported. Proposed revised
§ 501.15(a)(2) would reference the
requirements of proposed § 122.21(q).
EPA also proposes a new form, Form 2S,
for collection of this information.
Section (q) would require all TWTDS,
except “sludge-only” facilities, to report
Information regarding sewage sludge
generation, treatment, use, and disposal.
The permitting authority may also
require a “sludge-only” facility to
submit a permit application containing
this information. These proposed new
requirements are Intended to clarify
existing sewage sludge application
requirements. as necessary to
Implement the Agency’s Part 503
standards for sewage sludge use or
disposal.
As with the proposed POTW
application requirements, the Agency
does not wish to require redundant
reporting by TWTDS. Thus, the Agency
Is proposing to allow a waiver for
information required to be reported
under § 122.21(q) similar to that
proposed for § 122.21(j). This would
allow the Director to waive any
requirements In proposed paragraph (q)
if the Director has access to
substantially Identical Information. The
Agency solicits comment on this
approach and the proposed conditions
for allowing such a waiver.
Also as with the proposed POTW
application requirements, the Agency
also solicits comment on ways to allow
the permit writer or permitting authority
discretion in waiving particular
Information where the permitting
authority determines that such
Information is not necessary for the
application. In other words, there may
be flexible ways to look at each
applicant in light of the overall “matrix
of characteristics” regarding a particular
facility. Where, for example, historical
data indicate that additional sampling is
not warranted unless other conditions
have changed, the Agency is
considering waiving such sampling.
Such flexibility would involve a holistic
approach to implementing these
proposed requirements. and the Agency
solicits comment as to ways in which it
could be accomplished without making
these provisions entirely discretionary,
so that one could predict the exercise of
discretion. This might be particularly
relevant on the second and subsequent
rounds of permitting under these
proposed provisions. The Agency also
seeks comment on what information
might be appropriate and what
information might be inappropriate for
such waiver’s.
1. FacilIty Information
Proposed § 122.21(q)(1) would require
summary Information-on thç identity,
size, location, and status of the facility.
Proposed paragraph (ii) would request
that the facility location be described by
latitude and longitude to the nearest
second. This information meets the
specfi ations of EPA’s Locational Data
Policy and supports the Watershed
Protection Approach. by providing
permit writers and other Federal and
State environmental managers with a
means of geographically locating
potential sources of polluted runoff.
EPA believes that this change would
-------
62570 Federal Register I Vol. 60 No. 234 I Wednesday, December 6. 1995 / Proposed Rules
merely clarify, without expanding, an
existing reporting requirement.
2. Applicant Information
Proposed § 122.21(q)(2) would require
Information concerning the Identity of
the applicant and Its status as a Federal.
State, private, public. or other entity.
3. PermIt Information
Proposed § 122.21(qX3) restates the
§501.15(a)(2)(v) requirement that the
applicant list the facility’s NPDES
permit number and any other permit
numbers or construction approvals
received or applied for under-various
authorities.
4. Federal Indian Reservations
Proposed § 122.21(q)(4) clarifies
misting § 501.15(a)(2)Uv), which asks
only “whether the facility is located on
Indian Lands.” A sewage sludge use or
disposal permit, however, may cover
activities occurring beyond the
boundaries of the “facility.” Therefore,
the proposed paragraph asks whether
any generation, treatment. storage. land
application, or disposal of sewage
sludge occurs on a Federal Indian
Reservation. EPA believes that this
Information will better enable the
permit writer to identify the proper
permitting authority and applicable
requirements.
5. Topographic Map
Proposed § 122.21(q)(5) would require
the applicant to submit the following
information on a topographic map (or
maps) depicting the area one mile
beyond the property boundaries of the
TWFDS: All sewage sludge management
facilities, all water bodies, and all wells
used for drinking water listed in public
records or otherwise known to the
applicant within 1/4 mile of the
property boundaries. This proposed
requirement is different from the
misting topographic map requirement at
S 50t.15(a)(2)(vi) in that the proposed
requirement asks for Information on use
and dls osal sites rather than just
sites. EPA believes that It is
lust as Important to get Inormatlon on
land application sites as on dIsposal
sites. Neither the existing nor the
proposed requirements request a map
fat sites that extend more than a mile
beyond the TWTDS’s pm’ e ty
boundary. The permittln av± . lty
could request maps of all u .r or
disposal sites if they believø j j
information is necessary to rh lup
adequate permits. EPA requests
comments on whether maps sheu!d be
required for all use or dispo ’ c! itø . o
whether this roqirireme it shc. d be
modified I.. si . at ier way.
6. Sewage Sludge Handling
Proposed S 122.21(q)(6) would require
the applicant to prepare a flow diagram.
and/or a narrative description that
Identifies all sewage sludge
management practices (including on-site
storage) to be employed during the life
of the permit. EPA believes that this
information is necessary because the
applicant may employ sewage sludge
management practices not covered
under the more specific questions
proposed in today’s rule. To draft a
complete permit. the permit writer must
be aware of all sewage sludge storage,
use, or disposal practices that may have
an adverse affect on public health and
the environment. EPA requests
comments on whether more specific
information about on-site and off-site
storage of sewage sludge should be
required of permit applicants.
7. Sewage Sludge Quality
Currently, § 501.15(a)(2)(vii) requires
applicants to report ‘any sludge
monitoring data the applicant may
have.” However, this requirement
neither identifies the parameters that
must be reported nor provides a
mrh .nl’ .m for reporting this
Information. Proposed Form 2S and
§ 122.21(q)(7) would address this need
by requiring monitoring data for specific
parameters in sewage sludge that is used
or disposed.
Proposed paragraph (i) of
§ 122.21(q)(7) would require all Class I
sludge management facilities to submit
the results of at least one toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure
(TCLP) conducted during the last five
years to determine whether the sewage
sludge is a hazardous waste. The TCLP
is described In 40 CFR Part 261,
Appendix I I, and is a method for
determining whether a solid waste
exhibits the characteristic of toxicity, in
accordnr cn with 40 CFR 281.24. 40 CFR
Part 503 does not establish requirements
for the use or disposal of sewage sludge
determined to be hazardous under the
procedures In Appendix I I of 40 CFR
Part 261 and § 261.24. Hazardous
sewage sludge must be used or disposed
of In accordance with the hazardous
waste regulations in 40 CFR Parts 261—
268, or authorized State law. Using the
results of the hazardous waste test, the
permitting authority will deteñnine
which re uier ents ipply to the use or
disposal of the applicant’s sewage
sludge. EPA requests comments on
wl ther facilities should be allowed to
a method other than a TCLP to show
L ir s.swag sliid e is non.
hizarIe ,r a nd whether non-Class I
sludge management facilities should be
required to perform a TCLP.
Proposed paragraph (it) of
§ 122.21(q)(7) would require all
applicants to submit data on individual
pollutants in the sewage sludge.
Existing ±ita could be submitted if It
were two years old or less. EPA is
proposing a two -tIer npprouch for
collection of pollutant data that is based
on whether the treatment works has an
industrial wastewater pretreatment
program.
Under the two-tier approach, Class I
sludge management facilities would
submit sewage sludge data for the
pollutants listed in proposed 40 CFR
Part 122. AppendIx J. Table 2 (“Effluent
and Sewage Sludge Parameters for
Selected POTWs and Treatment Works
Treating Domestic Sewage”) and Table
3 (“Other Effluent and Sewage Sludge
Parameters for Treatment Works
Treating Domestic Sewage and Selected
POT’ Vs”) and for other selected
pollutants, as part of the application for
a permit for the use or disposal of
sewage sludge. Other TWTDS would be
required to submit data for the
pollutants regulated In Part 503 and for
other selected pollutants.
a. Class I sludge management
facilities. A Class I sludge managr-
facility Is any POTW required to..
an approved pretreatment program
under 40 CPR 403.8(a) and any TWTDS
classified as a Class I sludge
management facility because cit the
potential for the TWTDS’s sewage
sludge use or disposal practice to affect
public health and the environment
adversely. Under today’s proposal a
Class I sludge management facility
would submit sewage sludge
concentration data for all the priority
pollutants. except asbestos. as listed in
Tables 2 and 3 of Appendix J; for the
Part 503 pollutants: and for total
kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN). ammonia.
nitrate, and phosphorus (total).
EPA is proposing to require Class I
sludge management facilities to submit
data on the priority pollutants because
they are known to have adverse effects
on kitmirn health and the environment
and are of concern to the general public.
Since sewage sludge from Class I sludge
management facilities has an industrial
component. It is lmpottant to reassure
the public that this sewage sludge will
not cause harm if it is used or disposed
according to Part 503. A pollutant scan
every five years should help promote
the beneficial use of sewage sludge by
demonstrating its quality. If any
pollutants that are not regulated by Parr
503 show up in the scan, the results
would enable the permitting authority
to determine whether additional permit
-------
Federal_Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 / Wednesday. December 6. 1995 / Proposed Rules
62571
conditions (i.e., In addition to the
requirements in Part 503)
to protect public health and the
environment.
Many Class I sludge management
facilities are already required by their
pretreatment program to monitor their
sewage sludge for these pollutants. In
addition, many State sewage sludge
programs require monitoring for some or
all of these pollutants. EPA seeks
comments on this approach.
Section 405(d) of the CWA
contemplates a phased approach to
establishing numerical limits for
pollutants in sewage sludge that is used
or disposed. Moreover. sec. 405(d)(2)(D)
of the CWA provides that Ifirom time
to time, but not less often than every 2
years. the Administrator shall review
the regulation * * for the purpose of
identifying additional pollutants and
promulgating regulations for such
pollutants’ *
The Standards for the Use or Disposal
of Sewage Sludge that were published
on February 19. 1993. constitute Round
One of EPA’s sewage sludge standards
program. The Agency has identified a.
tentative list of pollutants for which
limits wi l lbe established in a Round
Two regulation (I.e., an amendment to
the Round One regulation) and has
announced a tentative schedule for the
publication of that amendment
Pollutants on the tentative list for the
Round Two regulation include acetic
acid (2,4.-dichiorophenoxy). aluminum,
antimony’, asbestos, barium.
beryllium, boron, butanone (2.), carbon
disulfide. cresol (p-). cyanide (soluble
salts and complexes)’. dioxin/
dibenzofuran (all monochioro to
octochloro conganers). endsullan-fl.
fluoride, manganese. methylene
chloride’, nitrate’, nitrite’,
pentachloronitrobenzene. phenol’,
phthalate (bis-2 -ethyihexyl) ’.
polychlonnated biphenyis (co-planar).
propanone (2 ). silvera. thallium’, tin,
titanium, toluene’,
trichiorophenoxyacetic acid (2.4.5-),
trichiorophenoxypropionic acid (12-
(2,4.5-)), and vanadium. EPA has
indicated that it retains the discretion
either to add to or delete pollutants from
the above list of pollutants.
The Agency is considering adding the
above pollutants to the list of pollutants
for which data have to be submitted by
Class I sludge management facilities
with a permit application. Eleven of the
above pollutants are Included In Tables
2 or 3 of proposed Appendix J or are
nutrients (see pollutants marked with an
asterisk). Therefore, this approach
would require that Class I sludge
management facilities submit data for 20
additional pollutants. The Agency
requests comments on this proposal.
b. All TWTDS. Part 503 contains
pollutant limits for ten inorganic
pollutants for sewage sludge that is land
applied (subpart B). three inorganic
pollutants for sewage sludge placed on
an unlined surface disposal site (subpart
C), and five inorganic pollutants for
sewage sludge fired in a sewage sludge
incinerator (subpart E). There are no
pollutant limits in Part 503 for sewage
sludge placed on a lined surface
disposal site or for sewage sludge placed
in a municipal solid waste landfill unit.
The pollutants for which limits are
Included in Part 503 are arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead.
mercury, molybdenum, nickel,
selenium, and zinc. Part 503 also
contains an operational standard for
pathogens (i.e.. focal coliform,
Salmonella sp. bacteria, enteric viruses,
and viable heimloth ova) and for total
hydrocarbons (THC). The operational
standards for pathogens are values that
can not be exceeded in sewage sludge
and the operational standard for THC is
a value that can not be exceeded in the
air emissions for a sewage sludge
incinerator stack.
With today’s rulemaking, EPA
proposes that applicants for a sewage
sludge use or disposal permit submit
sewage sludge concentration data for all
of the Part 503 inorge3lic pollutants. The
permitting authority needs to determine
whether a TWTDS can change its use or
disposal practice if the need arises. Data
for all of the Part 503 pollutants will
help the permitting authority make that
determination.
The Agency is aware that many
TWTDS employ only one sewage sludge
use or disposal practice. and that such
treatment works may object to
submitting data for pollutants that are
not regulated for that practice.
Nevertheless, EPA believes that the
additional information burden to collect
and submit data for all of the Part 503
pollutants is offset by the value of the
data to the permitting authority. The
Agency solicits comments on whether
an applicant should be required to
submit data only for the pollutants
regulated for the TWTDS’s use or
disposal practice.
As indicated previously, EPA also
proposes that all applicants submit
sewage sludge data for TKN. ammonia.
nitrate-nitrogen, and total phosphorus
with a permit application. In addition.
the percent solids of the sewage sludge
that is used or disposed of would have
to be reported. Percent solids is required
to ensure that all sewage sludge data can
be converted to dry weight values.
Information on the nitrogen and
phosphorus content of sewage sludge is
needed for several reasons. One
important use of the nitrogen data is to
help the permit writer to evaluate the
design of the agronomic rate for a land
application site. Part 503 requires that
sewage sludge be land applied at a rate
that is equal to or less than the
agronomic rate for the application site.
The Agency also can use the data on
nutrients in sewage sludge in future
considerations as to whether to establish
limits for nitrogen and phosphorus in
sewage sludge. r
The Agency Is also considering
adding certain pathogens to the list of
pollutants for which data would be
required with an application. These
include Salmonella sp. bacteria, entenc
viruses, and viable helminth ova. Part
503 contains density levels for these
miaoozg Lni.Tne that cannot be exceeded
in sewage sludge that is used or
disposed. In addition to pathogens, the
Agency is also considering requesting
data for fecal coliform, which is used in
Part 503 as a pathogen indicator. The
permitting authority would use these
data to determine whether the sewage
sludge meets the Class A or Class B
pathogen requirements in Part 503.
Pathogen data only would have to be
submitted by persons who land apply or
place sewage sludge In a surface
disposal site. EPA Is seeking comments
on this Issue as part of today’s proposal.
Results of current efforts within the
Agency may require that limits be
established prior to the Round Two
sewage sludge regulation, for dioxin.!
dibenzofuran and co-planar
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in
sewage sludge that is used or disposed.
Dioxinldibenzofliran is a carcinogen
that is highly toxic in low
concentrations. Because the chemical
structure of co-planar PCBs is similar to
the chemical structure of dloxin/
dibenzofuran, they are expected to have
eiinilnp hiim n health effects (i.e.. toxic
in low concentrations). Data for these
two pollutants could be used to develop
Part 503 limits for these pollutants or to
evaluate the Part 503 limits. For this
reason, the Agency is considering
requesting oil TW’FDS to submit data for
these pollutants with a sewage sludge
permit application. EPA seeks
comments on whether TWTDS who are
not Class I sludge management facilities
should be required to submit data on
these two pollutants.
8. Requirements for a Person Who
Prepares Sewage Sludge
Proposed § 122.21(q)(8) identifies
permit application information that a
person who prepares sewage sludge for
-------
62572 Federal Registes’ I Vol. 60. No. 234 / Wednesday. December 6. 1995 1 Proposed Rules
use or disposal would be required to
submit. A “person who prepares,” as
defined at 40 CFR 503.9(r), ii “either the
person who generates sewage sludge
during the treatment of domestic sewage
in a treatment works or the person who
derives a material from sewage sludge.”
Thlssectlonwouidthusperta lntoany
POTW or other treatment works that
generates sewage sludge. It also would
Include facilities (such as composting
operations) that receive sewage sludge
from another facility and then derive a
material from that sewage sludge.
• Paragraphs (i) and (ii) of proposed
§ 122.21(qJ(8) would request
information on the amount of sewage
sludge ‘prepared” at the facility. This
Includes the amount generated
(paragraph (I)) plus any other amount
that Is received from off-site (paragraph
(I I)). These paragraphs are intended to
clarify the e dstlng requirement at
§ 501.15(a)(ZHx) , which tells the
applicant to report annual sludge
production volume. Paragraph (ii)
would also solicit information on
sewage sludge treatment practices at any
• off-site facility from which sewage
sludge is received. The off.site facility
providing the sewage sludge is. by
definition, also a “person who
prepares.” and, therefore, would also be
subject to sludge permitting
requirements. EPA believes that
information on the delivering facility
enables the permit writer to assess the
quality of sewage sludge received by the
applicant. It also fosters more
appropriate allocation of permit
requirements between the applicant’s
facility and an off-site “person who
prepares.”
As in the case of the Municipal
Application regulations, the Agency
desires to incorporate into the final rule
previsions that reduce duplication of
effort. One possible way is to allow the
applicant to reference substantially
similar Information previously
submitted to a permitting authority
rather than resubmit the information.
The Agency solicits comments on using
this approach in the final rule and
suggestions of other possible options.
Before sewage sludge Is applied to the
land ci placed on an active sewage
sludge unit, it must meet the .
requirements for pathogen reduction in
§ 503.32 and for vector attraction -
reduction in 5503.33. Therefore.
paragraph (iii) of proposed
§ 122.21(qR8) would request
information on sewage sludge treatment
processes at the applicant’s facility,
Including pathogen or vector attr ton
reduction processes. The permit writer
needs to know whether pathogen and
vector attraction reduction requirements
are met at the applicant’s facility and
thus should be addressed in the
applicant’s permit. If these requirements
are not met by the applicant, pathogen
and vector attraction reduction must be
met by a subsequent “person who
prepares” or the owner/operator of a
surfkce disposal site.
“Exceptional quality” (EQJ sewage
sludge must meet the ceiling
concentrations in 40 CFR 503.13(b)(1),
the pollutant concentrations in
§503.13(b)(3) , the Class A pathogen
requirements in § 503.32(a), and one of
the vector attraction reduction
requirements in § 503.33 (b)(1) through
(b)(8). Because of Its high quality, “EQ”
sewage sludge is not subject to the
general requirements of 5503.12 or the
management practices of § 503.14.
Therefore, fewer permitting and permit
application requirements pertain to
facilities generating such sewage sludge.
Proposed paragraph (lv) of § 122.21(ci)(8)
would ask for the amount of sewage
sludge that is applied to the land. EPA
believes that this information is all that
is needed to develop sewage sludge
conditions for such a facility. Under
paragraph (iv), the applicant would not
need to provide the other, more-
detailed, Information in proposed
§ 122.21(qJ(8) paragraphs (v) and (vi) for
sewage sludge meeting “EQ” criteria.
The eaistlng requirement at
550 1.15(a)(2)(viil) asks for the “name of
any distributors when the sludge will be
disposed of through distribution and
marketing.” This requires the names of
any facilities that sell or give away “EQ”
sewage sludge. EPA believes that “EQ”
sewage sludge should be treated
similarly to other fertilizers. Thus, the
Agency believes that the names of
distributors should not be required and
is proposing to delete the requirement at
§501.1S(a)(2)(viii). The Agency seeks
comments on this approach.
Paragraph (v) of proposed
S 122.21(cij(8) would seek information
on sewage sludge that is not “EQ.” but
Is nevertheless placed in a bag or other
container for sale or give-away for
application to the land. Under Part 503.
such sewage sludge must meet the Class
A pathogen requirements In § 503.32(a)
and one of the vector attraction
reduction requirements In 4 503.33(b)(1)
through (8). In addition, the sewage
sludge must meet either the pollutant
concentrations in Table 3 of § 503,13 or
the annual pollutant loading rates
(APLR5) in Table 4 of §50313. If this
sewage sludge meets the Table 3
pollutant concentrations, it Is “EQ”
sewage sludge and thus would be
subject to proposed paragraph (iv).
Proposed paragraph (vi would only
apply to sewage sludge subject to óe
Table 4 APLRs that is placed In a bag
or other container for application tot’
land. EPA proposes to require that the
applicant employing this type of sewage
sludge use provide the volume of
sewage sludge placed in bags or other
containers and a copy of all labels or
notices that accompany the product
being sold or given away.
Paragraph (vi) of proposed
S 122.21(q)(8) would seek Information
about any other “person who prepares”
who receives sewage sludge from the
applicant’s facility. This information
helps the permit writer to Identify
which permit requirements should
apply to the applicant and whether the
subsequent preparer needs to obtain a
permit. Paragraphs (C) and (E) of
proposed paragraph (vi) would provide
the permit writer with necessary
information on the quality of the sewage
sludge that Is ultimately land applied.
This information also enables the permit
writer to Identify activities of the
subsequent “person who prepares” that
may subject the applicant to additional
regulation or permit requirements.
Therefore, these requirements would
ensure that the sewage sludge will meet
all applicable Part 503 requirements at
the time of land application, regardless
of the number of parties involved. One
possible way to obtain this Information
Is to allow the applicant to reference
substantially similar information
previously submitted to a permitting
authority rather than resubmit the
information. The Agency solicits
comments on using this approach in the
final rule and suggestions of other
possible options.
9. Land Application of Bulk Sewage
Sludge
Proposed § 122.21(q)(91 would request
information on sewage sludge that is
lend applied in bulk form. This section
would apply only where the applicant’s
permit must contain all applicable Part
503 requirements for land application.
This section would not apply if the
applicant generates “EQ” sewage sludge
subject to proposed § 122.2 1(q)(8)(iv), or
If the applicant places sewage sludge in
a bag or other container for sale or give-
away for application to the land subject
to proposed § 122.2l(q)(811v). In neither
of these cases is it necessary to control
the ultimate land application through a
permit and thus the applicant would not
need to provide this information as part
of the application. The section also
would not apply if the applicant
provides sewage sludge to another
“person who prepares” subject to
proposed 5 122.21(q)(8J(vi). In this case.
the ultimate land application would be
-------
Federal Register I VoL. 60. No. 234 / Wednesday. December 6. 1995 I Proposed Rules
62573
ontrolled by the subsequent “person
who prepares.”
paragraph U) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(9) would clarify the existing
requirement at § 501.15(aU2)(x) which
idils the applicant to report annual
Iudge production volume. Paragraph
III) asks how the applicant will satisfy
the § 503.12(i) notification requirement
for land application sites in a State other
than the State where the sewage sludge
is prepared.
Paragraph (A) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(9)(iii) would ask the
applicant to identify the land
application site. This question would
request locational information which
supports the Watershed Protection
Approach. by providing permit writers
and other Federal and State
environmental managers with a means
of geographically locating potential
sources of polluted runoff.
Paragraphs (B) and (C) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(9)(ili) would ask the
applicant to Identify the land
application site owner and applier, if
different than the applicant. EPA
believes that this information is
necessary in order to ensure that the
permit is issued to the correct party.
These proposed paragraphs would
clarify and expand on existing
requirements at § 501.15(a)(2)(viii).
One of the land application
management practices in § 503.14
mandates that bulk sewage sludge shall
not be applied to land at greater than the
agronomic rate. Therefore, paragraphs
(D) and (E) of proposed
§ 122.2 1(q)(9)(iii) would ask the
applicant to identify the type of land
application site, the type of vegetation
grown on that site, if known at the time
of permit application, and the
vegetation’s nitrogen requirement. This
information enables the permit writer to
calculate an appropriate permit
management practice regarding
agronolnic rate. EPA recognizes that
different crops may be grown on a site
during the life of a permit. If the crop
for a site is not known or Likely to
change, the applicant should submit
whatever information is available.
Paragraph (F) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(9)(iti) would request
information on vector attraction
reduction measures undertaken at the
land application site. Before sewage
sludge is applied to the land, It must
meet the requirements for vector
attraction reduction in § 503.33. These
measures may be undertaken either by
the “person who prepares” sewage
sludge or by the operator of the land
application site.
Paragraph (G) of proposed
§ 122.2 l(q)(9)(lil) would ask the
applicant to submit any existing ground-
watermonitoring data for the land
application site. Section 503.14(d) states
that bulk sewage sludge may not be
applied to land at greater than the
agronomic rate. Section 503 ,11(b)(2)
explains that “agronomic rate” is the
whole sludge application rate that
minimizes the amount of nitrogen that
passes below the root zone and into the
ground water. EPA believes that
permitting authorities need to review
existing groundwater monitoring data
for land application sites in order to
ensure that sewage sludge application
rates are appropriately protective of
ground water.
Section 501.15(a)(2)(ix) asks for
information necessary to determine if
the site is appropriate for land
application and a description of how the
site will be managed. This requirement
could be interpreted in different ways.
Today’s rule attempts to clearly specify
the site management requirements in
proposed paragraphs (D)-(G) of
proposed § 122.21(q)(9)Uil). The
permitting authority could request other
site management information if it is
needed to identify appropriate permit
conditions.
Proposed § 122.21(q)(9)(Iv) would
request Information that the permitting
authority needs in order to verify
whether the § 503.12(e)(2)(i)
requirement for appliers of bulk sewage
sludge subject to cumulative pollutant
loading rates (CPLRs) has been met. A
cumulative pollutant loading rate, as
defined in § 503.11(1) is “the maximum
amount of an inorganic pollutant that
can be applied to an area of land.” This
information enables EPA to ensure that
the CPLRs are not exceeded when more
than one facility is sending sewage
sludge subject to CPLRs to the same site.
Proposed § 122.21(q)(9)(v) restates the
requirement in existing
§ 501.15(a)(2)(lx) for information on
land application sites not identified at
the time of permit application.
10. Surface Disposal
Proposed § 122.21(q)(10) requests
Information on sewage sludge that is
placed on a surface disposal site. By
definition, a sewage sludge surface
disposal site is a TWrDS. Many surface
disposal site owner/operators, however,
would not have to complete this section.
but would instead submit the limited
background information required by
§ 122.2 1(c)(2)(iii). The applicant would
be required to provide the information
requested by proposed § 122.21(q)(10)
only if the surface disposal site were
already covered by an NPDES permit; if
the owner/operator were requesting site-
specific pollutant limits; or if the
permitting authority were requiring a
full application.
Paragraph (I) of proposed
§ 122.2 1(q)(10) would clarify the
existing requirement at § 501.15(a)(2)(x)
which tells the applicant to report
annual sludge production volume.
Paragraph (ii) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(l0) would require that the
applicant provide the name or number,
address, telephone number, and amount
of sewage sludge placed on each surface
disposal site that the applicant does not
own or operate. This paragraph would
clarify and expand on existing
requirements at § 501.15(a)(2)(viii). EPA
believes that this information is
necessary in order to ensure that the
permit Is issued to the correct party.
Paragraph (111) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(10) would request detailed
information on each active sewage
sludge unit at each surface disposal site
that the applicant owns or operates. A
“sewage sludge unit” is defined In
§ 503.21(n) as “land on which only
sewage sludge is placed for final
disposal.” A “surface disposal site” is
“an area of land that contains one or
more sewage sludge units.” Info rmation
on each active sewage sludge unit Is
necessary because Part 503 provides for
different pollutant limits, monitoring
requirements, and management
practices for each unit. This information
enables the permitting authority to
establish proper permit conditions.
Paragraph [ I) of § 122.21(q)(10)(iii)
would request information on sewage
sludge sent to the active sewage sludge
unit by any facility other than the
applicant’s. This information helps the
permit writer to determine which
requirements apply to the surface
disposal site owner/operator and which
apply to the facility which sends sewage
sludge to the surface disposal site. As
previously mentioned, one way to
reduce duplicate reporting, is to allow
the applicant to reference substantially
similar information already submitted to
a permitting authority. The Agency
solicits comments on using this
approach in the final rule and
suggestions for other options.
Paragraph (J) of proposed
§ 122.2 1(q)(10)(iii) would request
information on vector attraction
reduction measures undertaken at the
active sewage sludge unit. Before
sewage sludge is placed on an active
sewage sludge unit. it must meet the
requirements for vector attraction
reduction In § 503.33. Since vector
attraction reduction measures may be
performed either by the facility
preparing sewage sludge or by the
surface disposal site owner/operator,
-EPA believes that both should be
-------
62574 Federal Regis*er / Vol. 60. No. 234 I Wednesday, December 6. 1995 / Proposed Rules
required to supply information on their
practices.
Section 503.24(n)(2) requires surface
disposal sites to demonstrate by way of
a ground-water morntoring program or
certification that sludge placed on an
active sewage sludge unit does not
contsminnte the underlying aquifer. In
order to ensure that this requirement Is
implemented, paragraph (K) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(10)(lifl would request
information on ground-water
monitoring programs or certificaticos.
Because many communities rely on
ground water as a source of drinking
water. EPA believes that this
information is necessary to protect
public health and the envixonmeaL
Alter August 18, 1993. only surface
disposal sites showing good ceuse may
apply for site-specific pollutant limits.
Paragraph (L) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(10)(ui) would request the
information necessary for the permit
writer to determine whether such site-
specific limits are warranted. This
information would include a
demonstration that the values for site
parameters at the applicant’s site differ
from those used to develop the surface
disposal pollutant Limits in Pail 503.
11. Incineration
Proposed § 122.21(q)(11) would
request Information on sewage sludge
that is fired in a sewage sludge
incinerator. According to §503.41(k). a
sewage sludge incinerator is “an
enclosed device in which only sewage
sludge and auxiliary fuel are fired.” A
sewage sludge incinerator is a TWTDS
and is required to submit a full permit
application.
Paragraph (I) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(11) would clarify the
existing requirement at § 501.15(a)(Zllx)
which tells the applicant to report
annual sludge production volume.
Paragraph (ii) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(11) would require that the
applicant provide the name or
Identifying number, address, telephone
number, and amount of sewage sludge
flied in each sewage sludge incinerator
that the applicant does not own or
operate. This paragraph would clarify
existing requirements at
§501.15(aLiZ)(viai). EPA believes that
this information is necessary in order to
ensure that the permit Is issued to the
correct party.
Paragraph (iii) of proposed
§ 122.2 1(q)(11I would request detailed
information on each sewage sludge
incinerator that the applicant owns or
operates. Paragraph (B) of proposed
paragraph (ui) would request the total
amount of sewage sludge fired annualLy
in each incinerator. This information is
necessary because the moniLoring
requirements for sewage sludge
incinerators are based on the total
amount fired.
Paragraphs (C) and (D) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(11)(Ili) would request
information on compliance with the
beryllium and mercury National
Vini ions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPs). SectIon 503.43
paragraphs (a) and (b) require
compliance with these standards
through a aoss.reference to 40 CFR Part
61 subparts C and E. If the incinerator
is required to perform stack testing.
these paragraphs would require the
applicant to submit a report of that
testing.
Under § 503.43. the pollutant limits
applicable to each sewage sludge
incinerator are calculated based on
factors unique to each incinerator.
Paragraphs (E). (F), and (C) of proposed
§ 122.21(qJ(11)(lii) would require each
applicant to submit these factors for
their incinerator(s). Calculating
pollutant limits on an individual basis
allows the actual performance of each
incinerator and actual site conditions.
such as topography, to be taken into
account. EPA believes that this is more
appropriate than mandating national
pollutant limitations for sewage sludge
incinerators.
In the development of Part 503, EPA
determined that It would be infeasible
to establish individual limits for each
hydrocarbon in sewage sludge
Incinerator exit gas. Instead, the Agency
adopted a 100 ppm total hydrocarbon
(THC) limit and required continuous
THC monitoring to show compliance.
Part 503 was amended, on February 25.
1994 (59 FR 9095). to allow sewage
sludge incinerators whose exit gas does
not exceed 100 ppm carbon moncixido
(CO) to show compliance with the THC
operational standard by monitoring Co
instead of ThC. Paragraphs (H). (1). and
U) of proposed § 122.21(q)(llfluii) would
request the incinerator information
necessary to establish the correct
hydrocarbon monitoring requirements.
Many of the incinerator’s site-specific
factors that are used to calculate
pollutant limits and compliance with
the operational standard are highly
dependent on the temperature at which
the incinerator is operated and the rate
at which sewage sludge is fed into the
incinerator. For most Incinerators, these
parameters are determined during an
initial performance test. In order to
appropriately calculate pollutant limits
and ensure appropriate pollutant limits
and that the incinerator is operated
within the parameters of the original
performance test. EPA needs to know
the information in paragraphs (K)
through (0) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(11)(lii).
Paragraphs (P) and (Q) of proposer.
§ 122.21(ql(11)(iii) would request
information on the monitoring
equipment and air pollution con l
devices installed on the incinerator.
Information on this equipment is
necessary to ensure that the facility
complies with the management
practices at § 503.45.
12. Disposal in a Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill
Proposed § 122.21(q)( 12) would
request Information on sewage sludge
that Is sent to a municipal solid waste
landfUl (MSWLF). Section 503.4 states
that sewage sludge sent to a MSWLF
that compiles with the requirements in
40 CFR Part 258 constitutes compliance
with sec. 405(d) of the CWA. The
questions in § 122.21(q)(12) are
necessary to ensure the availability of
accurate information about a MSWLF
and the sewage sludge that is sent there.
Paragraphs Ii) and (Ii) of proposed
§ 122.21(q)(12) would clarify existing
requirements at § 501.15(a)(2)(v). (viii),
and (x) that request information on
other perotits. the location of”
sites, and the annual sludge proo..
volume. Paragraph (iii) would request
information on the sewage sludge
quality to ensure that it is acceptable I
a MSWLF. Paragraph (iv) would request
available information on whether the
MSWLF is in compliance with Part 258.
13. Contractors
Proposed § 122.21(qJ(13) would
require the applicant to provide
contractor information. The applicant
would be required to identify all
contractors responsible for any
operation or maintenance aspects of the
TWTDS. and specify their
responsibilities. The permitting
authority uses this information to
determine who has primary
responsibility jot the operation and
maintenance of the TWTDS.
14. Other Information
Proposed § 122.21(q)(14) would
require the applicant to report any
information necessary to determine the
appropriate standards for permitting
under 40 CFR Part 503. and any other
Information the permitting authority
may request and reasonably require to
assess the sewage sludge use and
disposal practices. to determine whether
to issue a permit. or to identify
appropriate permit requirements. This
paragraph restates the existing
requirements in § 50 1.15(a)(2)(xi) and
(xii).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 / Wednesday. D&rimiher 6. 1995 I Proposed Rules
62575
is. SignatUre
propused § 122.21(qKlS) would
ri qu’re that a certifying official sign the
[ urn in compliance with 40 CFR 122.22.
This would ensure that the person
uning the form has the authority to
..peak for and legally bind the permittee.
iv. paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requiremeflt5 in this proposed rule have
hem submitted for approval to the
office of Management and Budget
lOMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act. 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request
document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No. 0226.13) and a copy may be
obtained from Sandy Farmer.
Information Policy Branch; EPA; 401 M
St . S.W. (Mail code 2136); Washington.
DC 20460: or by calling (202) 260—2740.
This collection of information has an
estimated reporting burden averaging
10.7 hours per response, including
annual recordkeeping burden. These
estimates include time for reviewing
inStTUCtiOflS. searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintpining the
data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of Information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to
Chief, Information Policy Branch: EPA:
401 M St.. S.W. (Mail Code 2136):
Washington. DC 20460; and to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs. Office of Management and
Budget. Washington. DC 20503, marked
“Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.” The
fInal rule will respond to any 0MB or
public comments on the information
collection requirements contained In
this proposal.
V. Executive Order 12806
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735 (October 4, 1993)), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory
action is “significant” and therefore
subject to 0MB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines “significant
regulatory action” as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of 3100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy.
productivity. competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities:
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
Impact of entitlements, grants. user fees,
or loan programs or the nghts and
obligations of recipients thereof: or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.”
Pursuant to the terms of Executive
Order 12866. it has been determined
that this rule is a “significant regulatory
action” because It may adversely affect
local governments by incrementally
Increasing permit application costs. As
such, this action was submitted to 0MB
for review. Changes made In response to
0MB suggestions or recommendations
will be documented in the public
record.
VI. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875 (58 FR
58093 (October 28, 1993)), no executive
agency shall promulgate any regulation
that Is not required by statute and that
creates a mandate upon a State, local, or
tribal government, unless:
(a) Funds to pay the direct costs
associated with the regulation are
provided by the Federal Government, or
(b) The agency, prior to promulgation.
provides 0MB a description of its
consultation with representatives of the
affected governments, the nature of their
concerns, any written communications
submitted to the agency by them, and
the agency’s position supporting the
need for the regulation. Each agency is
also required to develop an effective
process to permit elected officials and
other representatives of these
governments an opportunity to provide
meaningful and timely input on
significant unfunded mandates.
As discussed above (“Public
Consultation in the Development of
Today’s Proposal.” at l.H.). the Agency
consulted with States, local
governments, and other parties in the
development of this proposed rule. This
Is further discussed in the discussion
below (“Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 and Consultation with State,
Local, and Tribal Governments,” at VII).
VII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 and Consultation With State,
Local, and Tribal Governments
Title I I of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded
Mandates Act”), Public Law 104—4,
establishes requirements for Federal -
agencies to assess the effects of their
regulatory actions on State, local, and
tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the
Unfunded Mandates Act, EPA generally
must prepare a written statement,
including a cost-benefit analysis. for
rules with Federal mandates that may
result in expenditures to State, local,
and tribal govenunents in the aggregate.
or to the private sector, of S iUO million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed. section 205
of the Unfunded Mandates Act generally
requires EPA to identify and Lonsider a
reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly.
most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section
205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
adopt an alternative other than the least
costly. møst cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted.
Under section 203 of the Unfunded
Mandates Act, EPA must develop a
small government agency plan before it
establishes regulatory requirements that
may significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, including tribal
governments. The plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small
governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have -
meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating. and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule
does not include a Federal mandate that
may result in expenditures of $100
million or more to either State. local and
tribal governments in the aggregate, or
to the private sector in any year. To the
extent enforceable duties arise as a
result of today’s proposed rule on State,
local and tribal governments, such
enforceable duties do not result in a
significant regulatory action being
imposed upon State, local and tribal
governments since the estimated
aggregate cost of compliance for them is
not expected to exceed 35.7 million
annually. Thus, today’s proposed rule is
not subject to the written statement
requirement in section 202 of the Act.
Lu compliance with E.O. 12875. which
requires the involvement of State, local
and tribal governments in the
development of certain Federal
regulatory actions. EPA conducted a
wide outreach effort and actively sought
the Input of representatives of State.
local, and tribal governments in the
process of developing the proposed rule.
Agency personnel have communicated
with State and local representatives in
-------
82576 Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
a number of different forums. For
example. EPA staff Involved In
development of today’s proposed rule
Invited cmn,nents on earlier drafts of
the proposed mlmii fr 4 ng, forms, and
Instructions from States and local
uvvi iments both directly and through
orgenlentions such as the Association of
Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
(AMSA), the Water Environment
Federation (WEF). and the California
Association of Sanitation Agencies
(CASA). In zesponse to these efforts, the
Agency was able to communicate
directly. including through meetings
and telephone communications, with
representatives of a number of
interested State and local
representatives, including
representatives of more than twenty-five
local governments. Cities represented in
a telephone conference arranged
through WEF included Price (UT).
Owosso (MI), Saginaw (MI), Rockwood
(MI), Grand Rapids (Ml), Roseburg (OR),
Central Mann San. Dist. (CA), Uttle
Rock (AR), Dallas (TX), Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer Diet. (OH). Cities
represented in a meeting with AMSA
representatives included Detroit (MI),
Boise (ID), City of Los Angeles (CA).
Phoenix (AZ), Passaic Valley (NJ);
Middleton (NJ), Hampton Roads (VA),
Orange County (CA), Anchorage (AK),
and Alexandria (VA). Other discussions
were held individually with
representatives of local governments.
The Agency received written comments
from AMSA. several cities, and a
number of States. In the comments
received from States, a number of issues
were raised concerning.posslble impacts
on local governments. EPA Invited, but
did not receive, written comments from
the Association of State and Interstate
Water Pollution Control Adminictrators
(ASIWPCA) and the National League of
Cities.
Once the proposed rule is an.itl,ad ,
the Agency intends to provide
information through a variety of
sources, and to educate and advise local
governments concerning compliance
with the proposed requirements. In the
Communication Plan prepared for this
proposal, the Agency has outlined
which organizations EPA will contact
directly concerning the proposal. The
same parties will also be contacted
directly regarding the final rulemaking.
The communication plan is available in
the record supporting this proposal. The
Ag_ency seeks to assist, educate, and
advise applicants on how to comply
with the permit application
requirements primarily through the
instructions to the proposed forms, and
seeks comment as to how the
Instructions could be improved.
Additionally, the Agency intends to
provide training for permit writers, so
that they can assist, educate, and advise
applicants on an as-needed basis when
completing their applications.
VIIL Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub.
L 96—354) requIres Federal agendas to
consider the effect of proposed rules on
small entities. Agencies must consider
alternatives to proposed rules that
would minimi2e the economic Impact
on small entities so long as these
alternatives are consistent with the
stated objective of the statute under
which such rules are developed.
However, the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act do not alter
standards otherwise applicable to
agency action. For example. sectIon 405
of the CWA requires EPA to promulgate
regulations that are adequate to protect
public health or the environment
against reasonably anticipated adverse
effects.
In developing these proposed
regulations, EPA considered the effects
of the proposed regulations on small
entities. The regulatory flexibility
analysis (RFA) conducted for this
proposed rule meets the requirements
specified in the “Guidelines for
implementing the Regulatory Flexibility
Act” (U.S. EPA, Office of Regulatory
Management and Evaluation and Office
of Policy, P1”nning, and Evaluation,
April 1992).
Most of the applicants that would be
required to complete the municipal and
sludge application forms. if finalized,
are small entities. For the purposes of
the RFA, EPA employs the deünition of
small government entitles that was
originally advanced in a related
rulemaking. See U.S. EPA, “Regulatory
Impact Analysis of the Part 503 Sewage
Sludge RegulatIon,” November 25, 1992.
for a complete discussion of the
development of this definition. For the
purposes of this rule, the term “small
government entities” is considered to
mean small POTWs. Small POTWs are
defined as POTWs processing less than
I million gallons per day (mgdl of
wastewater. POTWs of this size
generally serve a population of 10,000
people or less. This definition is
consistent with the designation of major
and minor POTWs under the NPDES
program.
The estimate of the number of small
POTWs subject to both sets of proposed
application requirements is based on the
number of minor POTWs. Also. for the
purposes of the RFA. the Agency
conservatively assumi’d that all “sludge-
only” POTWs are small entities.
Generally, treatment facilities serving
large populations (greater than 10,000)
generate effluent of sufficient volume
that It must be discharged to waters of
the U.S.. and thus require an NPDES
permit. The Agency also assumed for
purposes of the RFA that all privately
owned treatment facilities are small
entities. Overall, EPA estimates that
nearly 70 percent of municipal
applicants and 74 percent of sludge
applicants are small entities.
EPA considered a range of regulatory
options for the proposed forms. In this
proposal, the Agency has developed a
two-tier approach for municipal
applicants and a two-tier approach for
sludge applicants. Applicants are
categorized according to size and
whether or not they are required to have
a pretreatment program. Under each
regulatory option considered, less
stringent standards are required for
smaller facilities that are loss likely to
pollute and have a lower capacity to
absorb large monitoring costs.
The costs of complying with the
proposed application requirements
would consist entirely of paperwork and
testing costs associated with completing
the forms and collecting the required
information. Therefore, the costs for
these activities estimated in the ICR for
this proposed rule are used in the RFA.
The five-year compliance cost estimates
for POTWs applying for NPDES permits
(I.e.. for both sets of application
requirements) range from $681 to $3,627
for small POTWs under the four
regulatory options under consideration
for the municipal permit application
and the three regulatory options under
consideration for the sludge application
requirelnunts. The five-year compliance
cost estimates for the various options
under this proposed rule range from
approximately $507 to $2,849 for small
privately owned treatment works. These
costs would represent between 0.06 and
0.31 percent of the average annual
revenues of small POTWs and small
privately owned treatment works. As a
percent of average household
expenditures on sewage treatment, these
figures would range between 0.10 and
0.54 percent for small POfliVs and small
privately owned treatment works. The
five-year compliance costs for sludge-
only facilities (I.e., paperwork costs
associated with the proposed sludge
application requirements) range from
$375 to $2,809 under the three
regulatory options under consideration
for small POTWs and from $299 to
$2,849 for privately owned treatment
works. These costs would represent well
below 0.5 percent of both the average
annual revenues for small treatment
works (public and private) and of the
-------
Federal_Register I VoL 60. No. 234 I Wednesday. December 6. 1995 / Proposed Rules
62577
average annual household costs for
sewage treatment. Thus, impacts on
small treatment facilities and their
customers are not expected to be severe.
List of Subjects
40 C IA Part 122
Environmental protection.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Confidential business information,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Sewage disposal. Waste
treatment and disposal, Water pollution
control.
40 CFR Part 123
Confidential business information.
Hazardous materials. Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. Sewage
disposal, Waste treatment and disposal,
Water pollution control, Penalties.
40 CFR Part 403
Confidential business information,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waste treatment and
disposal. Water pollution control.
40 CFR Part 501
Confidential business information.
Environmental protection, Reporting
and recordkeeplng requirements,
Publicly owned treatment works,
Sewage disposal, Waste treatment and
disposal.
Dated: November 2, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Admsnast rotor.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble. EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR Chapter 1 as follows:
PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NAT1ONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM
• * • • •
1. The authority citation for part 122
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.
2. Section 122.2 is amended by
revising the definition for “Publicly
owned tzeatrnent works (“POTW”) and
adding a definition for “TWTDS” in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
§ 122.2 DefInitions,
• • • • •
Publicly owned treatment works
(“POTW”) means a treatment works as
defined by section 212 of the CWA,
which is owned by a “State” or
“municipality” (as defined by section
502(4) of the CWA). This definition
includes any devices and systems used
in the storage, treatment, recyclIng and
reclamation of municipal sewage or
industrial wastes of a liquid nature. It
also includes sewers, pipes and other
conveyances only if they convey
wastewater to a POTW Treatment Plant,
as defined in § 4 O 3 . 3 (p) of this chapter.
The term also means the municipality as
defined in section 502(4) of the CWA,
which has jurisdiction over the Indirect
Discharges, as defined in § 403.3(g) of
this chapter, to and the discharges from
such a treatment works,
• a • • •
TW’FDS means treatment works
treating domestic sewage.
3—6. SectIon 122.21 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(2)(i) through (iii)
introductory text, paragraph (d)(3), the
introductory text of paragraph (0.
paragraph (j) and by adding paragraph
(q) before the notes to read as follows:
§ 122.21 Appucallon fore permit
(applicable to Sblte programe, ass § 12325).
* • • S
(C)
(2) Permits under section 405(f) of
CWA. (i) Any existing treatment works
treating domestic sewage (TWTDS)
required to have site-specific pollutant
limits, or requesting such limits, as
provided in 40 CFR Part 503, must
submit the permit application
information required by paragraph
(d)(3)(iii) of this section within 180 days
after publication of a standard
applicable to its sewage sludge use or
disposal practice(s). After this 180-day
period, TWTDS may only apply for site-
specific pollutant limits for good cause
and such requests must be made within
180 days of becoming aware that good
cause exists,
(ii) Any TWTDS with a currently
effective NPDES permit, not addressed
under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section,
must submit the application information
required by paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of this
section at the time of its next NPDES
permit renewal application. Such
information must be submitted in
accordance with paragraph (d) of this
section.
(iii) Any other existing TWTDS not
addressed under paragraphs (c)(2)(i) or
(ii) of this section must submit the
information listed in paragraphs
(c)(2)(iii)(A) through (E) of this section,
to the Director within 1 year after
publication of a standard applicable to
Its sewage sludge use or disposal
practice(s), using Form 2S or another
form approved by the Director. The
Director shall determine when such
TWTDS must apply for a permit.
(3)(i) All applicants for EPA-issued
permits, other than POTWs, new
sources, and TWTDS, must complete
Forms I and either 2B, 2C, or 2E of the
consolidated permit application forms
to apply under § 122.21 and paragraphs
(0, (g), (h), and (I) of this section.
(ii) All POTWs must submit the
application information required by
paragraph (j) of this section, within the
time periods established in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section, using Form ZA or
another form approved by the Director.
All POTWs applying for EPA-issued
permits must complete Form 2A.
(iii) All TWTDS, except “sludge-only
facilities” subject to paragraph (c)(2)(lii)
of this section, must submit the
application information required by
paragraph (q) of this section, within the
time periods established in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section. using Form 2S or
another form approved by the Director.
All such applicants applying for EPA-
issued permits must complete Form 2S.
(I) Information requirements. All
applicants for NPDES permits, her
than POTWa and other TWTDS, shall
provide the following information to the
Director, using the application form
provided by the Director (additional
Information required of applicants is set
forth in paragraphs (g) through (k) of
this section).
• * S * *
(j) Application requirements for new
and existing POTWs. Unless otherwise
indicated, all POT’vVs shall provide, at a
minimum, the information in this
paragraph (j) to the Director, using Form
2A or another application form
provided by the Director, The Director
may waive any requirement of this
paragraph if the Director has access to
substantially identical information.
(1) Basic application information. All
applicants shall provide the following
information:
(I) Facility ihfomiation. Name,
mailing address, and location of the
facility for which the application is
submitted:
(ii) Applicant information. Name,
mailing address, and telephone number
of the applicant, and indication as to
whether the applicant is the facility’s
owner, operator, or both:
(iii) Existing environmental permits.
Identification of all environmental
permits or construction approvals
received or applied for (including dates)
under any of the following programs:
(A) Hazardous Waste Management
program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
subpart C of this part;
(B) UIC program under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA);
-------
62578 Federal Register I Vol . 60, No. 234 / Wednesday. December 5. 1995 / Proposed Rules
(C) NPDES program under Clean
Water Act (CWA):
(Di Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program under the
Clean Air Act:
(E) Nonattsininent program under the
Clean Air Act:
(F) National Emission Standards far
Hazardous Pollutants (NESHAPS)
preconstruction approval under the
Clean Air Act;
(C) Ocean dumping permits under the
Marine Protection Research and
Sanctuaries Xct:
(H) Dredge or ftfl permits under
section 404 of the CWA: and
(I) Other relevant environmental -
permits. including State permits
(iv) Population. The name and
population of each municipal entity
served by the facility, including
unincorporated connector districts;
(v) Flow rate. The facility’s design
flow rate and annual average daily flow
rate for each of the previous 3 years;
(vi) Collection system. Identify type(s)
of collection system(s) used by the
treatment works (I.e.. separate sanitary
sewers or combined storm and sanitary
sewers) and an estimate of the percent
of sewer line that each type comprises:
(vii) Inflow and infiltration. The
current average daily flow rate volume
of Inflow and infiltration, in gallons pa
day, and steps the facility is taking to
minimize inflow and infiltration;
(viii) Topographic map. A
topographic map (or other map if a
topographic map is unavailable)
extending at least one mile beyond
property boundaries of the treatment
plant. including all unit processes, and
showing:
(A) Treatment plant area and unit
processes;
(B) The pipes or other structures
through which wastewater enters the
treatment plant and the pipes or other
structures through which treated
wastewater is discharged from the
treatment plant Include outfalls from
bypass piping. if applicable;
(C) Each well where fluids from the
treatment plant are ln)octed
underground;
(D) Wells, springs, other surface water
bodies, and drinking water wells listed
in public records or otherwise known to
the applicant within the map area:
(E) Sewage sludge management
facilities (including on-site treatment.
storage, and disposal sites) within the
property boundaries: and
(F) Location at which waste classified
as hazardous under RCRA enters the
treatment plant by truck, rail, or
dedicated pipe:
( Ix) Process flow diagram or
schematic.
(A) A diagram showing the processes
of the treatment plant, including all
bypass piping. This includes a water
balance showing all treatment units.
including disinfection, and showing
daily average flow rates at influent and
discharge points, and approximate daily
flow rates between treatment units: and
(B) A narrative description of the
diagram;
(x) Bypasses. The following
inkrrnation for each outfall that is a
ñi h rge from a bypass point:
(A) The actual or approximate number
of wet-weather and dry-weather bypass
incidents in the twelve months prior to
the date of the permit application;
(B) The actual- or approximate
duration of each wet-weather or dry-
weather bypass incident:
(Cl The actual or approximate
volume, in millions of gallons, of each
wet-weather or dry-weather bypass
incident: and
(Dl The reason(s) why such bypasses
oocuned;
(xi) Outf ails and other discharge or
disposal methods. The following
information for outfalls to waters of the
United States and other discharge or
disposal methods:
(A) For effluent discharges to waters
of the United States, the total number
and types of outfalls (e.g. treated
effluent, CSOs) to surface water,
(B) For wastewater discharged to
surface impoundments:
(1) The location of each surface
impoundment;
• (2) The annual average daily volume
discharged to each surface
impoundment; and
(3) Whether the discharge is
continuous or intermittent:
(C) For wastewater applied to the
land:
(1) The location of each land
application site:
(2) The size of each land application
site, in acres;
(3) The annual average daily volume
applied to each land application site. in
gallons per day: and
(4) Whether land application is
continuous or intermittent:
(Dl For wastewatar discharged to
another facility:
(1) The meansby which the discharge
is transported;
(2) The name, mailing address,
contact person, and phone number of
the organization transporting the
discharge. if the transport is provided by
a party other than the applicant:
(3) The name, mailing address.
contact person. phone number, and
NPDES permit number (if any) of the
receiving facility: and
(4) The average daily flow rate from
this facility into the receiving facility,
millions of gallons per day: and
(El For wastewater disposed of In a
manner not Included in paragranhs
(l)(1)Ux) (A) through (D of this section
(e.g., underground percolation,
underground injection):
(1) A description of the disposal
method, including the location and size
of each disposal site, if applicable;
(2) The annual average daily volume
disposed of by this method, in gallons
per day: and
(3) Whether disposal through this
method is continuous or intermittent:
(xii) Federal Indian ieservations.
Information concerning whether the
facility is located on a Federal Indian
Reservation or whether the facility
discharges to a receiving stream that
flows through a Federal Indian
Reservation; and
(xiii) Scheduled improvements,
schedules of implementation. The
following information regarding
scheduled improvements;
(A) The outfall number of each outfall
affected;
(B) A narrative description of each
required improvement:
(C) Scheduled or actual dates of
completion for the following:
(1) Commencement of construction’
(2) Completion of construction;
(3) Commencement of discharge; and
(4) Attainment of operational level;
and
(D) A description of permits and
clearances concerning other Federal
and/or State requirements:
(2) Information on effluent discharges.
Each applicant must provide the
following information for each outfall.
including bypass points, through which
effluent is discharged. as applicable:
(I) Description of outfall. The
following information about each
outfall:
(A) Outfall number:
(B) State. county, and city or town in
which outfall is located:
(C) Latitude and longitude, to the
nearest second:
(D i Distance from shore and depth
below surface:
(El Average daily flow rate, in million
gallons per day:
(F) The following information for each
outfall with a seasonal or periodic
discharge:
(1) Number of times per year the
discharge occurs:
(2) DuratIon of each discharge.
(3) Flow of each discharge: and
(4) Months in which discharge occt’
and
(C) Whether the outfall is eqwpped
with a diffuser and the type (a g iigh.
rate) of diffuser used:
-------
Federal Register I VoL 60. No. 234 I Wednesday. December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
62579
(ii) Description of receiving waters.
rhe following information (if known)
br each outfall through which effluent
is discharged to waters of the United
Slates:
(A) Type (e.g.. stream, river, lake.
estuary. ocean) and name of receiving
(B) Name of watershed/river/stream
. . stem and United States Soil
Conservation Service 14-digit watershed
code:
(C) Name of State Management/River
Bdsin and United States Geological
Survey 8-digit hydrologic cataloging
unit code; and
(D l Critical flow of receiving stream
and total hardness of receivIng stream at
critical low flow (if applicable); and
(iii) Description oftreatment. The
following information describing the
treatment provided for discharges from
each outfall to waters of the United
States:
(A) The highest level of treatment
(e.g.. pnmary. equivalent to secondary.
secondary. advanced, other) that is
provided for the discharge for each
outfall and:
(2) Design biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD 5 or CBOD 5 ) removal
(percent);
(2).Design suspended solids (SS)
removal (percent); and, where
pplicable;
(3) Design phosphorus (P) removal
(percent);
(4) Design nitrogen (N) removal
(percent); and
(5) Any other removals that an
advanced treatment system is designed
to achieve.
(B) A description of the type of
disinfection used. and whether the
treatment plant dechlorinates (if
disinfection is accomplished through
chlorination);
(3) Effluent monitoring for specific
parameters. (i) As provided in
paragraphs (jJ(3) (ii) through (x) of this
section all applicants shall submit to the
Director effluent monitoring information
for samples taken from each outfall
through which effluent is discharged to
waters of the United States, except for
CSOs. The Director may allow
applicants to submit sampling data for
only one outfall on a case-by-case basis.
where the applicant has two or more
outfalls with substantially identical
effluent;
(ii) All applicants must sample and
analyze for the pollutants listed In
Appendixj of this part. Table 1;
(Iii) The following applicants must
‘.rnple and analyze for the pollutants
sted in Appendix J of this part. Table
2. and for any other pollutants for which
the State or EPA have established water
quality standards applicable to the
receiving waters:
(A) All POT%Vs with a design influent
flow rate equal to or greater than one
million gallons per day:
(B) All POTWs with approved
pretreatment programs or POTWs
required to develop a pretreatment
program; and
(C) Other POT’i,Vs. as required by the
Director.
(iv) Unless otherwise required by the
Director, applicants are not required to
sample for the pollutants listed in
Appendix of this part, Table 3;
(v) The Director should require
sampling for additional pollutants, as
appropriate, on a case-by-case basis;
(vi) Applicants must provide data
from a minimum of three samples taken
within three years prior to the date of
the permit application. Samples must be
representative of the discharge from
each outfall, and at least two samples
should be at least four months, but no
more than eight months apart. Existing
data may be used, if available, in lieu of
sampling done solely for the purpose of
this application. The Director should
require additional samples. as
appropriate, on a case-by-case basis;
(vii) All existing data for pollutants
specified In paragraphs (j)(3) (ii) through
(v) of this section that is collected
within three years of the application
must be included with the pollutant
data submitted by the applicant. If.
however, the applicant samples for a
specific pollutant on a monthly or more
frequent basis, it is only necessary, for
such pollutant, to provide all data
collected within one year of the
application;
(viii) Applicants must collect samples
of effluent and analyze such samples for
pollutants in accordance with analytical
methods approved under 40 CFR part
136 unless an alternative is specified in
the existing NPDES permit. When no
analytical method is approved.
applicants may use any suitable method
and must provide a description of the
method. Grab samples must be used for
pH. temperature. cyanide. total phenols,
residual chlorine, oil and grease. fecal
coliform. E. coil, and enterococci. For all
other pollutants. 24-hou.r flow-weighted
composite samples must be used. For a
flow-weighted composite sample. only
one analysis of the composite of aliquots
is required. A single grab sample may be
taken for effluent from holding ponds or
other impoundments. so long as they
have a retention time of greater than 24
hours:
(ix) The effluent monitoring data
provided must Include at least the
following information for eaLh
parameten
(A) Maximum daily discharge,
expressed as concentration or mass,
based upon actual sample values:
(B) Average daily discharge for all
samples, expressed as concentration or
mass, based upon actual sample values,
and the number of samples used to
obtain this value:
(C) The analytical method used: and
CD) The threshold level (i.e.. method
detection limit, minimum level, or other
designated method endpoints) for the
analytical method used: and
(x) Unless otherwise required by the
Director, metals must be reported as
total recoverable:
(4) Effluent monitoring for whole
effluent toxicity. Ci) All applicants shall
provide an identification of any
biological toxicity tests that the
applicant knows or has reason to believe
have been made during the three years
prior to the date of the application on
any of the applicant’s discharges or on
a receiving water in relation to a
discharge.
(ii) As provided in paragraphs (j)(4)
(iii) through (ix) of this section, the
following applicants shall submit to the
Director the results of valid whole
effluent biological toxicity tests for
acute or chronic toxicity for samples
taken from each outfall through which
effluent is discharged to surface waters,
except for combined sewer overflows:
(A) All POTWs with design influent
flow rate equal to or greater than one
million gallons per day:
(B) All POTWs with approved
pretreatment programs or POT%Vs
required to develop a pretreatment
program; and
(C) Other POTWs, as required by the
Director, based on consideratioa of the
following factors:
(2) The variability of the pollutants or
pollutant parameters in the POTW
effluent (based on chemical-specific
information, the type of treatment plant.
and types of industrial contributors):
(2) The ratio of effluent flow to
receiving stream flow;
(3) Existing controls on point or non-
point sources, including total maximum
daily load calculations for the receiving
stream segment and the relative
contribution of the POTW;
(4) Receiving stream characteristics,
including possible or known water
quality impairment, and whether the
POTW discharges to a coastal water, one
of the Great Lakes, or a water designated
as an outstanding natural resource
water or
(5) Other considerations (including,
but not limited to, the history of toxic
impacts and compliance problems at the
POTW) that the Director determines
-------
62580 Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 234 / Weth esday, December 6, 1995 / Protosed Rules
could cause or contribute to adverse
water quality impacts.
(iii) Where the POTW has two or more
outfalls with substen*’silly identical
effluent discharging to the same
receiving stream segment. the Director
may allow applicants to submit whole
effluent toxicity data for only one outfall
on a case-by-case basis.
( Iv) Each applicant required to
perform whole effluent bioiegical
toxicity testing pursuant to paragraph
(i)(4)(ii) of this section shall provide the
results of a minimum of four quarterly
tests for a yesr. Applicants shall
conduct tests with multiple species (no
less than two suecies; e.g., fish.,
invertebrate, plant), and test for acute or
chronic toxicity, depending on the range
of receiving water dilution. It is
recommended that applicants conduct
acute or chronic testing based on the
following dilutions:
(A) Acute toxicity testing lithe
dilution of the effluent Is greater than
1000:1 at the edge of the mixing zone;
(B) Acute or chronic toxicity testing if
the dilution of the effluent is between
100:1 and 1000:1 at the edge of the
mixing zone. Acute testing may be more
appropriate at the higher end of this
range (1000:1). and chronic testing may
be more appropriate at the lower end of
this range (100:1); end
(C) Chronic testing lithe dilutien of
the effluent is less than 100:1 at the edge
of the mixing zone.
(v) Each applicant required to perform
whole effluent biological toxicity testing
pursuant to paragraph (j)(4)(ii) of this
section shall provide the number of
chronic or acute whole effluent toxicity
tests that have been conducted since the
last permit teissuance.
(vi) Provide the results using the form
provided by the Director, or test
sii nn *ries if available and
comprehensive, for each whole effluent
toxicity test conducted pursuant to
paragraph (j)(4)(ii) of this section for
which such information has not been
reported previously to the Director.
lvii) Whole effluent toxicity testing
conducted pursuant to paragraph
(l)(411h1) of this section shall be
conducted using methods approved
under 40 CFR part 136.
(viii) For blomonitoring data
submitted to the Director within three
years prior to the date of the
application, applicants must provide the
dates on which the data were submitted
and a summary of the results.
(lx) Each POTW required to perform
whole effluent biological testing
pursuant to paragraph (j)(4)(ii) of this
section must provide any information
on the cause of toxicty and written
details of any toxicity reduction
evaluation conducted, if any whole
effluent toxicity test conducted within
the past three yearn revealed toxicity.
(5) Industrial discharges and
pretreatment. Applicants must submit
the information In paragraphs (j)(5)(l)
through (iii) of this section, as
applicable, regarding Industrial user
discharges to the POTW.
(1) General information. General
information on industrial users.
(A) Number of significant industrial
users (SIUs) and categorical industrial
users (CIUs) discharging to the P01W:
(B) Total average daily flow rate from
all industrial (non-domestic) users, from
SIUs, and from all CIUs discharging to
the P01W; and
(C) Estimated percent of total influont
contributed by all industrial (non-
domestic) users, by SIUs only, by CIUs
only, and by domestic sources
discharging to the POTW.
(ii) Pretreatment program and local
limits. POTWs with an approved
pretreatment program under 40 CFR
part 403 shall provide information
concerning pretreatment program
modifications that are required to be
submitted but have not been approved
in accordance with 40 CFR 403.18.
(iii) Significant industrioJ users.
POTWs with one or more significant
Industrial users (SIUs) shall provide the
following information for each SIU, as
defined at 40 CFR 403.3(t), that
discharges to the P01W:
(A) Name and mailing address:
(B) Description of all industrial
processes that affect or contribute to the
SIU’s discharge;
(C) Principal products and raw
materials of the SIU;
(D) Average daily volume of
wastewater discharged. indicating the
amount attributable to process flow and
non-process flow;
(E) Whether the SIU is subject to local
limits;
(F) Whether the SIU is subject to
categorical standards, and ifso, under
which categorytles) and
subcategory(ies): and
(G) Whether any problems at the
P01W (e.g., upsets, pass through.
Interference) have been attributed to the
SIU in the past three years;
(6) Discharges from hazardous waste
generators and from waste deanup or
remediatlon sites. P0T ,Vs receiving
RCRA, CERCLA. or RCRA Corrective
Action wastes or wastes generated at
another type of cleanup or remediation
site must provide the following
Information:
(I) RCRA hazardous waste. lithe
POTW receives by truck, rail, or
dedicated pipe any wastes that are
regulated as RCRA hazardous wastes
pursuant to 40 CFR part 261, or
authorized State. or if it is expected to
receive such wastes during the life of
the permit. the applicant must report
the following:
(A) The method by which the waste
is received (I.e.. whether by truck, rail,
or dedicated pipe); and
(B) The hazardcus waste number and
amount received annuaUy of each
hazardous waste:
(ii) CERCI.A w’istewaters. If the P01W
receives wastewaters that riginate
response activities undertaken pursu
to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA). or if it is expected to
receive such wastowaters during the life
of the permit, the applicant must report
the following:
(A) The identity and description of
the site(s) at which the wastewater
originates or is expected to originate;
(B) The identities of the hazardous
constituents in the wastewater and
(C) The extent of treatment, if any, the
wastewater receives or will receive
before entering the P01W:
(iii) RCRA corrective action
wastewaters. If the P01W receives
wastewaters that originate from
remedial activities undertaken pursuant
to sections 3004(u) or 3008(b) of RCRA.
or authorized State, or lilt is expected
to receive such wastewaters during th.
life of the permit, the applicant must
report the following:
(A) The identity and description of
the fàcility(les) at which the wastewater
originates or is expected to originate:
(B) The identities of the hazardous
constituents in the wastewater, and
(C) The extent of treatment, If any, the
wastewater receives or will receive
before entering the P01W; and
(iv) Wastewat rs from other remedial
activities. If the P01W receives
wastewaters that originate from
remedial activities other than those in
paragraphs (j)(6) (ii) and (ill) of this
section. the applicant shall provide a
written description that includes the
following Information:
(A) The Identity and description of
the facility(les) at which the wastewater
originates or is expected to originate:
(8) The Identities of the hazardous
constituents In the wastewatec and
(C) The extent of treatment, if any, the
wastewater receives or will receive
before entering the POTW;
(7) Combined sewer overflows. Each
applicant with combined sewer systems
shall provide the following information:
(I) Combined sewer system
information. The following information
regarding the combined sewer system:
(A) CSO discharge points. The
number of combined sewer overflow
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6. 1995 I Proposed Rules
62581
(CSO) discharge points in the combined
sawer system to be covered by the
application:
(B) System map. A map indicating the
location of the following:
(1) All CSO discharge points:
(2) Sensitive use areas potentially
affected by CSOs (e.g.. beaches, drinking
water supplies, shellfish beds, sensitive
aquatic ecosystems. and outstanding
natural resourm waters); and
(3) Waters supporting threatened and
endangered species potentially affected
by CSOs:
(C) System diagram. A diagram of the
combined sewer collection system that
includes the following information:
(1) The location of major sewer trunk
lines, both combined and separate
sanitary;
(2) The locations of points where
separate sanitary sewers feed into the
combined sewer system;
(3) In-line and off.line storage
structures;
(4) The locations of flow-regulating
devices: and
(5) The locations of pump stations;
and
(1)) System evaluation. A list of
studies, including modeling studies,
hydraulic studies, past monitoring
efforts, and facility plans. that have been
performed on the collection system
since the last permit application; and
(LI) Information on CSO outf oils. The
following information for each CSO
discharge point covered by the permit
application:
(A) Description of outfall. The
following information on each outfall:
(1) Outfall number;
(2) State. county, and city or town in
which outfall is located:
(3) Latitude and longitude, to the
nearest second; and
(4) Distance from shore and depth
below surface;
(B) Monitoring. Indicate if any of the
following were monitored in the past
year for this CSO and provide the
results of this monitoring:
(1) Rai.afall;
(2) CSO flow volume;
(3) CSO water quality:
(4) Receiving water quality; and
(5) The number of storm events;
(C) CSO incidents. The following
information about CSO incidents:
(1) The number of incidents In the
past year.
(2) The average duration per incident;
(3) The average volume per CSO
incident: and
(4) The minimum rainfall that caused
a CSO Incident in the last year;
(Di Description of receiving waters.
The following information about
receiving waters:
(1) Name and type of receiving water
(e.g.. stream/river, lake/pond, estuary,
ocean);
(2) Name of watershed/stream system
and the United States Soil Conservation
Service watershed (14-digit) code (if
known); and
(3) Name of State Management/River
Basin and the United States Geological
Survey hydrologic cataloging unit (8-
digit) code (if known); and
(E) CSO operations. The following
Information concerning CSO operations:
(1) Whether the CSO includes
contributions from significant industrial
users; and
(2) A description of any known water
quality impacts on the receiving water
caused by the CSO (e.g.. permanent or
intermittent beach closings, permanent
or Intermittent shellfish bed closings,
fish kills, fish advisories, other
recreational loss, or exceedance of any
applicable State water quality standard);
(8) Contractors. All applisants shall
provide the name, mailing address,
telephone number, and responsibilities
of all contractors responsible for any
operational or maint’ ce aspects of
the facility: and
(9) Sign atwe. All applications shall
be signed by a certifying official in
compliance withg 12222.
(q) Sewage sludge management. All
treatment works treating domestic
sewage, except “sludge-only facilities”
sub ject to paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this
section. shall provide the information in
this paragraph to the Director, using
Form 2S or another form approved by
the Director. The Director may waive
any requirement of this paragraph if the
Director has access to substantially
identical information.
(1) Facility information. All
applicants shall submit the following
information:
(I) The name, mailing address, and
location of the treatment works treating
domestic sewage for which the
application is submitted:
(ii) The facility’s latitude and
longitude to the nearest second, and
method of determination;
(iii) Whether the facility is a Class I
Sludge Management Facility:
(iv) The design influent flow rate (in
million gallons per day); and
(v) The total population served:
(2) Applicant information. All
applicants shall submit the following
Information:
(I) The name, mailing address, and
telephone number of the applicant;
(ii) Indication whether the applicant
is the owner, operator. or both; and
(iii) The applicant’s status as Federal.
State. private. public. or other entity:
(3) Permit information. All applicants
shall submit the facility’s NPDES permit
number. If applicable, and a listing of all
other Federal, State, and local permits
or construction approvals received or
applied for under any of the following
‘ardous Waste Management
program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA);
(ii) UIC program under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA);
(iii) NPDES program under the Clean
Water Act (CWA);
(lv) Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program under the
Clean Air Act;
(v) Nonattninvnent program under the
Clean Air Act:
(vi) National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
preconstruction approval under the
Clean Air Act;
(vU) Dredge or fill permits under
section 404 of CWA: and
(viii) Other relevant environmental
permits, Including State or local
permits;
(4) Federal Indian Resersations. All
applicants shall identify any generation.
treatment. storage, Land application, or
disposal of sewage sludge that occurs on
Federal Indian Reservations;
(5) Topographic map. All applicants
shall submit a topographic map (or
other map If a topographic map is
unavailable) extending one mile beyond
property boundaries of the facility and
showing the following information:
(i) AU sewage sludge management
facilities, including use and disposal
sites;
(ii) All water bodies; and
(iii) Wells used for drinking water
listed in public records or otherwise
known to the applicant within 1/4 mile
of the facility property boundaries:
(6) Sewage sludge handling. All
applicants shall submit a line drawing
and/or a narrative description that
identifies all sewage sludge
management practices employed during
the term of the permit, including all
units used for collecting. dewatering,
storing, or treating sewage sludge. the
destination(s) of all liquids and solids
leaving each such unit, and all
processes used for pathogen reduction
and vector attraction reduction;
(7) Sewage sludge quality. (ii If the
applicant is a “Class I sludge
management facility,” the applicant
shall submit the results of a toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure
(TCLP). as described In 40 CFR part 261,
conducted In the last five years to
determine whether the sewage sludge is
a hazardous waste.
(ii) The dpplicant shall submit sewage
sludge monitoring data for the
-------
82582 Federal Register / VoL 60, No. 234 I Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
parameters Indicated in paragraphs
(q)(7)(li) (A) through (B) of this secthso.
Monitoring data shall be two years old
or less. The data for each parameter’
shall include the concentration in
sewage sludge (mg/ks dry weight), the
sample date(s), the analytical method.
and the minimum detection level for the
analysis.
(A) “Class I Sludge Management
Facilities.” as defined in 122.2, shall
submit sewage sludge monitoring data
for TKN. ammonia, nitrate, total
phosphorus. the pollutants in Appendix
J of this part, Tables 2 and 3. and any
other parameters for which limits in
sewage sludge have been established in
40 C R part 503 on the date of permit
application.
(B) AU other facilities required to
apply under this section shall submit
sewage sludge monitoring data for TKN.
ammonia, nitrate, total phosphorus and
those poUutants for which limits in
sewage sludge have been established in
40 CFR part 503 on the date of permit
application:
(8) Preparation of sewage sludge. U
the applicant Is a “person who
prepares” sewage sludge. as defined at
40 CFR 503.9(r), the applicant shall
provide the following informatlon
(I) If the applicant’s facility generates
sewage sludge, the total dry metric tons
per 365-day period generated at the
facility;
(Ii) lithe applicant’s facility receives
sewage sludge from another facility, the
following information for each facility
from which sewage sludge is received:
(A) The name, mailing address, and
location of the other facility;
(8) The total dry metric tons per 365-
day period received from the other
facility; and
(C) A description of any treatment
processes occurring at the other facility.
including blending activities and
treatment to reduce pathogens or vector
attraction characterisrica:
(Iii) If the applicant’s facility changes
the quality of sewage sludge through
blending, treatment, or other activities.
the following Informatlom
(A) Whether the Class A pathogen
reduction requirements in 40 G’R
503.32(a) or the Class B pathogen
reduction requirements in 40 CFR
503.32(b) are met, and a description of
any treatment processes used to reduce
pathogens in sewage sludge:
(B) Whether any of the vector
attraction reduction options of 40 CFR
503.33(b)(l) through (b)(8) are met, and
a description of any treatment processes
used to reduce vector attraction.
properties in sewage sludge: and
(C) A description of any other
blending, treatment, or other activities
that change the quality of sewage
sludge;
(iv) If sewage sludge from the
applicant’s facility meets the ceiling
concentrations in 40 CFR 503.13(b)(l),
the pollutant concentrations in 40 CFR
503. 13(b)(3), the Class A pathogen
requirements in 40 CFR 5 03.32(a), and
one of the vector attraction reduction
requirements in 40 CFR O3.33(b1(1)
through (b)(8), and if the sowage sludge
is applied to the land, the applicant
shall provide the total dry metric tons
per 365-day period of sewage sludge
subject to this paragraph that is applied
to the land;
(v) U sewage sludge from the
applicant’s facility is sold or given away
in a bag or other container for
application to the land, and the sewage
sludge is not subject to paragraph
(q)(8)(iv) of this section. the applicant
shall provide the following information:
(A) The total dry metric tons per 365-
day period of sewage sludge subject to
this paragraph that is sold or given away
in a bag or other container for
application to the land: and
(B) A copy of all labels or notices that
accompany the sewage sludge being
sold orgiven away;
(vi) If sewage sludge from the
applicant’s facility is provided to
another “person who prepares.” as
defined at 40 CFR 503.9(r), and the
sewage sludge is not subject to
paragraph (q)(8)(iv) of this section. the
applicant shall provide the following
Information for each facility receiving
the sewage sludge:
(A) The name and mailing address of
the receiving facility;
(B) The total dry metric tons per 365-
day period of sewage sludge subject to
this paragraph that the applicant
provides to the receiving facility:
(C) A description of any treatment
processes occurring at the receiving
facility, including blending activities
and treatment to reduce pathogens or
vector attraction characteristic:
(I)) A copy of the notice and necessary
Information that the applicant is
required to provide the receiving facility
under 40 CFR 503.12(g): and
(E) If the receiving facility places
sewage sludge in bags or containers for
sale or give-away to application to the
land, a copy of any labels or notices that
accompany the sewage sludge:
(9) Land application of bulk sewage
sludge. If sewage sludge from the
applicant’s facility is applied to the land
in bulk form, and is not subject to
§ 122.21(q)(8)(iv), (v), or (vi). the
applicant shall provide the following
information:
(i) The total dry metric tons per 365-
day period of sewage sludge subject to
this paragraph (q)(9) that Is applied to
the land:
(Ii) If any land application sites a
located in States other than the Stat
where the sewage sludge is prepared. a
description of how the applicant will
notify the permitting authority for the
State(s) where the land application sites
are Located:
(Ill) The following information for
each land application site that has been
identified at the tune of permit
application:
(A) The name (if any), and location for
the land application site:
(B) The name, mailing address, and
telephone number of the site owner, if
different from the applicant;
(C) The name, mailing address, and
telephone number of the person who
applies sewage sludge to the site, if
different from the applicant:
(D) Whether the site is agricultural
land, forest, a public contact site, or a
reclamation site, as such site types are
defined under 40 CFR 503.11;
(E) The type of’ vegetation grown on
the site, if known, and the nitrogen
requirement for this vegetation:
(F) Whether either of the vector
attraction reduction options of 40 CFR
503.33(b)(9) or (bib) is met at the site.
and a description of any procedures
employed at the time of use to reducr
vector attraction properties in sewa 1
sludge: and
(G) Any available ground.water
monitoring data, with a description of
the well Locations and approximate
depth to ground water, for the land
application site;
(iv) The following information for
each land application site that has been
identified at the time of permit
application, if the applicant intends to
apply bulk sewage sludge subject to the
cumulative pollutant loading rates in 40
CFR 503.13(b)(2) to the site:
(A) Whether the applicant has
contacted the permitting authority in
the State where the bulk sewage sludge
subject to 40 CFR 503.13(b)(2) will be
applied, to ascertain whether bulk
sewage sludge subject to 40 CFR
503.13(b)(2) has been applied to the site
on or since July 20. 1993, and if so, the
name of the permitting authority and
the name and phone number of a
contact person at the permitting
authority:
(B) Identification of facilities other
than the applicant’s facility that have
sent, or are sending, sewage sludge
subject to the cumulative pollutant
loading rates in 40 CFR 503.13(b)(2) to
the site since July 20, 1993, if, based
the inquiry in paragraph (q)(9)(iv)(A)
this section, bulk sewage sludge subject
to cumulative pollutant loading rates in
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday. December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
62583
40 CFR 503.13(b)(2) has been applied to
the site since July 20. 1993:
(v) If not all land application sites
have been identified at the time of
permit application, the applicant shall
submit a land application plan that, at
a minimum:
(A) Describes the geographical area
covered by the plan;
(B) Identifies the site selection
criteria;
(C) Describes how the site(s) will be
managed:
(Dl Provides for advance notice to the
permit authority of specific land
application sites and reasonable time for
the permit authority to object prior to
land application of the sewage sludge;
and
- (E) Provides for advance public notice
as required by State and local law, but
In all cases requires notice to
landowners and occupants adjacent to
or abutting the proposed land
application site;
(10) Surface disposal. If sewage
sludge from the applicant’s facility is
placed on a surface disposal site, the
applicant shall provide the following
information:
(i) The total div metric tons of sewage
sludge from the applicant’s facility that
is placed on surface disposal sites per
365-day period:
(ii) The following information for
each surface disposal site receiving
sewage sludge from the applicant’s
facility that the applicant does not own
or operate:
(A) The site name or number, contact
person. mailing address, and telephone
number for the surface disposal site; and
(B) The total dry metric tons from the
applicant’s facility per 365-day period
placed on the surface disposal site; and
(iii) The following information for
each active sewage sludge unit at each
surface disposal site that the applicant
owns or operates:
(A) The name or number and the
location of the active sewage sludge
unit:
(B) The total dry metric tons placed
on the active sewage sludge unit per
365-day period;
(C) The total dry metric tons placed
on the active sewage sludge unit over
the life of the unit;
(Dl A description of any liner for the
active sewage sludge unit: including
whether it has a maximum permeability
of lx 10’cm/sec;
(E) A description of any leachate
collection system for the active sewage
sludge unit, including the method used
for leachate disposal, and any Federal.
State. and local permit number(s) for
leachate disposal:
(F) lithe active sewage sludge unit Is
less than 150 meters from the property
line of the surface disposal site, the
actual distance from the unit boundary
to the site property line:
(GI The remaining capacity (dry
metric tons) for the active sewage sludge
unit:
(H) The date on which the active
sewage sludge unit is expected to close,
if such a date has been identified;
(I) The following information for any
other facility that sends sewage sludge
to the active sewage sludge unit:
(1) The name, contact person, and
mailing address of the facility; and
(2) Available information regarding
the quality of the sewage sludge
received from the facility, including any
treatment at the facility to reduce
pathogens or vector attraction
characteristics:
U) Whether any of the vector
attraction reduction options of 40 CFR
503,33(b)(9) through (b)(il) is met at the
active sewage sludge unit, and a
description of any procedures employed
at the time of disposal to reduce vector
attraction properties in sewage sludge;
(IC) The following information, as
applicable to any ground-water
monitoring occumng at the active
sewage sludge unit:
(1) A description of any ground-water
monitoring occurring at the active
sewage sludge unit:
(2) Any available ground-water
monitoring data, with a description of
the well locations and approximate
depth to ground water.
(3) A copy of any ground-water
monitoring plan that has been prepared
for the active sewage sludge unit: and
(4) A copy of any certification that has
been obtained from a qualified ground-
water scientist that the aquifer has not
been contaminated; and
(L) IF site-specific pollutant limits are
being sought for the sewage sludge
placed on this active sewage sludge
unit, information to support such a
request;
(11) Incineration, If sewage sludge
from the applicant’s facility is fired in
a sewage sludge incinerator, the
applicant shall provide the following
information:
(i) The total dry meLric tons of sewage
sludge from the applicant’s facility that
is fired in sewage sludge incinerators
pot 365-day period;
(ii) The following information for
each sewage sludge incinerator firing
the applicant’s sewage sludge that the
applicant does not own or operate:
(A) The name and/or number. contact
person. mailing address. and telephone
number of the sewage sludge
Incinerator: and
(B) The total dry metric tons from the
applicants facility per 365-day period
fired in the sewage sludge incinerator;
(iii) The folluwuig information for
each sewage sludge incinerator that the
applicant owns or operates:
(A) The name and/or number and the
location of the sewage sludge
incinerator’
(B) The total dry metric tons per 365-
day period fired in tac sewage sludge
incinerator,
(C) Information, test data, and
documentation of ongoing operating
parameters indicating that compliance -
with the National Emission Standard for
Beryllium in 40 CFR part 61 will be
achieved;
(D) Information, test data, and
documentation of ongoing operating
parameters indicating that compliance
with the National Emission Standard for
Mercury in 40 CFR part 61 will be
achieved;
(E) The dispersion factor for the .
sewage sludge incinerator, as well as
modeling results and supporting
documentation;
(F) The control efficiency for
parameters regulated in 40 CFR 503.43,
as well as porformance test results and
supporting documentation:
(G) Information used to calculate the
risk specific concentration (RSC) for
chromium, including the results of
incinerator stack tests for hexavalent
and total chromium concentrations, if
the applicant is requesting a chromium
limit based on a site-specific RSC value:
(H) The concentration (ppm) of total
hydrocarbons (THC) or Carbun
Monoxide (CO) in the exit gas for the
sewage sludge incinerator, as well as
supporting documentation. buth before
and after correction for zero Dercent
moisture and c. rrer.ticr to seven
percent oxygen q .“equlre4 In 40 FR
503.44;
(I) The oxygen concentration in the
sewage sludge :n neretor stark exit gas;
(I) Information used to dctennice the
moisture content ot the sowa e sludge
incinerator stack exit gis;
(K) The type of st wage sludge
Incineratnr
(L) The combustion Lelnpcraturc, as
obtained during the performance test of
the sewage sludge inL .ineialor to
determine pollutant control efficiencies.
(M} The folltvA’ing informathin on
sewage sludge feed rate:
(I) Sewage sludge feed rate in dry
metric tons per day;
(2) Identification ‘J whether the feed
rate submitted is a’.’lragu use or
maximum design, and
(3) A description .‘if how the feed rate
was calculated:
(N) The incinerator stack height in
meters for each stack, including
identification of whether actual or
creditable stack height was used:
-------
02584 Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 34 / Wednesday. December 6, 1995 1 Proposed Rules
(0) The operating parameters for the
sewage sludge incinerator air pollution
control device(s), as obtained during the
performance test of the sewage sludge
incinerator to determine poLlutant
control efficiencies;
(P) Identification of the monitoring
equipment in place. including (but not
limited to) equipment to monitor the
following:
(1) Total hydrocarbons or Carbon
Monoxide:
(2) Percent oxygen;
(3) Percent moisture: and
(4) CombustIon temperature: and
(0] A list of all air pollution control
equipment used with this sewage sludge
incinerator
(13) Disposal in a municipal solid
waste landfill. If sewage sludge from the
applicant’s facility is sent to a
municipal solid waste land6ll
(MSWLF). the applicant shall provide
the following information for each
MSWLF to which sewage sludge is sent:
(I) The name, contact person. mailing
address, location, and all applicable
permit numbers of the MSWLF;
(ii) The total dry metric tons per 385-
day period sent from this facility to the
MSWLF:
(Iii) A determination of whether the
sewage shidge meets applicable
requirements for disposal of sewage
sludge in a MSWLF. including the
results of the paint filter liquids test and
any additional requirements that apply
on a site-specific basis; and
(lv) Information, if known, indicating
whether the MSWLF complies with
criteria set forth in 40 R Part 258;
(13) Contractors. All applicants shall
provide the name, mailing address,
telephone number, and responsibilities
of all contractors responsible for any
operational or maintenance aspects of
the facility;
(14) Other infomtotion. At the request
of the permitting authority, the
applicant shall provide any other
information necessary to determine the
appropriate standards for permitting
under 40 CFR part 503. and shall
provide any other information necessary
to assess the sewage sludge use and
disposal practices, determine whether to
issue a permit, or identify appropriate
permit requirements: and
(15) Signature. All applications shall
be signed by a certifying official in
compliance with §122.22.
7. Part 122 is amended by adding
Appendix Jto read as follows:
Appendix Ito Part 122—NPDES Permit
Testing Requirements for Publicly
Owned Treatment Works ( 122.21(j))
and Treatment Works Treating
Domestic Sewage ( 122.21(q))
Table 1—Effluent Parameters for All
POTWS
Ammonia (as N)
Biochemical oxygen demand (DOD—S or
cBOD—5I
Chlorine (total residual. TRC)
Dissolved oxygen
S. Coil
Enterococci
Focal coliforin
Flow Rate
Hardness (as CaCO,)
Kieldahi nitrogen
Ni ate/Nitnte
Oil and grea. e
pH
Phosphorus
Temperature
Total dissolved solids
Total suspended solids
Table 2—Effluent and Sewage Sludge
Parameters for Selected POTWS and
Treatment Works Treating Domestic
Sewage
Metals (Total Recoverable), Cyanide and
Total Phenols
Antimony
7440—36—0
Arsenic
7440—38—2
Beryllium
7440—41—7
Cadmium
7440—43—9
Chromium
7440—47—3
Copper
7440—50—8
Lead
7439-92—1
Mercury
7439—97—6
Nickel
7440—02—0
Selenium
7782—49—2
Silver
7440-22—4
Thallium
7440—28—0
Vnc
7440—68—8
Cyanide
57—12—5
PhenolS, total
Volatile Organic Compounds
Acrolein
107—02—8
Acrylonitrile
107—13—1
Benzene
271-43—2
Bromofonn -
75—25—2
Carbon tetrachioride
59-23—5
O ilorobenzene
108—90—7
124—48— i
Chloroethane
75—00-3
2-chloroethylviizyl ether
110—75—8
Chloroform
87—66—3
Dichiurobromomethane
75-27-4
i.t ’dichloroethane
75—34—3
1,2 ’dichloroethane
107-08—2
Trans.1.2.dichloroethylene
156—60— 5
LI. dlchioroethylene
75-35-4
1.2-dichlorupropane
78—87—S
1.3.dichlorupropene
542-75-6
Ethylhenzene
1 004 1—4
Methyl bromide
74—83—9
Methyl hloride
74—87—3
Methylene chionde
75—09—2
l.1.2.2•tetrachloroethano
630—20-6
Tetrachioroethylone
127—18—4
Totuane
108—88—3
1.1.1 .trtch!oroethane
71—55-4
1.i.2-trlchtoroethane
79-00—S
Trich loroethytene
79—01—6
Vinyl chloride
75—01—4
Acid-extractable compounds
P-chloro -,n-cresol
59-50-7
2 ’chlorophenol
95-57—8
2.4-dlchlorophenol
120—83—2
222.4.dlmethylphonol
105—67—9
4,6-d lnitro-o -creso l
534—52—1
2,4-din itrophenol
51—28-5
2-nitrophenol
887—5—5
4-nitrophenol
100-02—?
Pentachiorophenol
87—86-5
Phenol
108-295-2
88—06—2
Base-Neutral Compounds
Acenaphthene
83—32—9
Acenaphthylena
208—96—8
Anthracone
-------
Federal Register / VoL nO, No. 234 / Wufr.’ i: v. Decemoer G. 1995 / Proposed Rules
120—12—7
Benzidine
92—87—5
Benzo(a)anthrecene
56—55—3
Benzo(a)pyrene
50-32—8
3.4 benzofluoranthene
205—99—2
Benzo(ghi)perylene
191—24—2
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
207—09-9
91 5 (2.chloroethoxy) methane
111—9l—l
ala (2-chioroethyl) ether
111—44—4
ala (2-chiorolsopropyl ether
108—60—1
Bis (2.ethylhexyl) phthalate
1 17—81—7
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
101—55-3
Butyl benzyl phthalate
85—68—7
.chloronaphtha lene
91—58—7
4-chiorophenyl phenyl ether
7005—72—3
Chrysene
218-01—9
Dl-n-butyl phthalate
84—74—2
Di.n.octyl phibalate
117—84—0
Dibenzo(a.h)anthracene
53—70—3
1.2-dichiorobensene
95-50-1
1.3 -dich lorobenzene
541—73—1
1.4 -dichlorobenaene
106—46—7
3.3’-dichlorobenz idine
91—94—1
Diethyl phthalate
84—66—2
Dimethyl phthalate
13 1—11—3
2.4-dinitrotoluene
121—14-2
2.6-dinitrotoluene
608-20-2
1.2-diphenyihydrazine
122—60—7
Fluoranthena
206-44—0
Fluorene
86-73-7
1 1 8 -7 4 -1
exachiorol
87—68-3
- -—-———-—- ——
77—47—4
Hexachioroethane
67—72—1
Indeno(1.2.3 -cdjpyrene
193—36-5
Isophorone
78—59—1
Nsphthalene
91—20-3
Nitrobeozane
N.nitrosodl n.propylamine
621—64—7
N.nitrosodimethylamute
62—75-9
N.nitrosodiphenylamine
86-30-6
Phenanthrene
85—01—8
Pyrene
129—00—0
1.2.4.-trich lorobenrene
120—82—1
Table 3—Other Effluent and Sewage
Sludge Parametere for Treatment
Works Treating Domestic Sewage and
Selected POTWS
Metals
Molybdenum
7439—98—7
Pesticides
Aidrin
309-00—2
Alpha . BHC
319—84—6
Beta.BHC
319—85—7
Delte-BHC
319-88—8
Gamma-BHC
58-89-9
Chiordane
57—74—9
4.4’-DDD
72—54—8
4.4 ’-DDE
72—55—9
4,4—DDT
50-20-3
Die ldrin
60-57—1
Aipha-endosulfan
959—98—8
Beta-endosulfan
33213—65-9
Endosulfan sulfate
1031-07—8
Endrin
72—20—8
Endrin aldehyde
7421—93—4
Heptach lor
76—44—8
Meptachior epoxide
1024—57—3
P B—1O16 (Aroclor 1016)
12674—11—2
PCB—1221 (Aroclor 1221)
11104-26-2
P 3—1232 (Aroclor 1232)
11141—16—5
P B—1242 (Aroclor 1242)
53469—21—9
PCB—1248 (Aroclor 1248)
12672—29-8
PCB—1254 (Aroclor 1254)
11097-09—1
PCB—1260 (Aroclor 12601
11096—82—5
Tozephena
8001—35-2
Other
. .8-tatracl
1748-01—6
PART 123—STATE PROGRAM
REQUIREMENTS
62585
8a. The authority citation for pert 123
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C 1251
et seq.
8b. Section 123.25 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as
follows:
5123.25 Requirements for-permitting.
(a)
(4) Sections 122.21(a). (b). (cR2), (e)
through (k). (nfl through (p). and (qi—
(Application for a permit);
PART 403—GENERAl.
PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS FOR
EXISTING AND NEW SOURCES OF
POLLUTION
9. The authority citation for part 403
continues to-read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 54(c)(2) of the Clean Water
Act of 1977. (Pub. L 95-217) sections
204(b)(IXC). 208(b)(2)(CXuiI). 301(b)(1)(A)(ii).
30 1(bj(2)(C). 301(h)(5). 301(11(2). 304(e).
304(g). 307. 306. 309. 402(b). 405. and 501(a)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(Pub. L. 92-500) as amended by the Clean
Water Act of 1977 and the Water Quality Act
of 1987 (Pub. 1.. 100-4).
10. SectIon 403.8 Is amended by
revising paragraph (fl(4) to read as
follows:
5403.8 Pretreatment Program
Requifements2 Development and
Implementation by P01W.
a a a * a
(f)a a a
(4) The POTW shall:
(I) Develop local limits as required in
§ 403.5(c)(1), or demonstrate that they
are not necessary; and
(ii) Following permit issuance or
reissuance, provide a written technical
evaluation of the need to revise local
limits under 40 CFR 403.5(c)(1).
a a a a a
PART 501—STATE SLUDGE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
REGULATIONS
11. The authority citation for part 501
continues to read as follows:
Aisherityt Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C 1251
et seq.
12. SectIon 501.15 is amended by
removing the reference
“S 5O1.lSIa)(2)(ixY’ In paragraphs (d)(4)
Introductory text. (d)(4R1)(C) , and
(d)(5)(li)(B) and adding in its place
‘5 122.21(q)(9)(v)”. and by revising
paragraph (a)(2) to road as follows:
-------
62586 Federal Register I Vol.
§501.15 Requlremen for permftthig.
(a)’ ‘
(2) information requirements. All
treatment works treating domestic
sewage shall submit to the Director the
60, No. 34 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
information lisied at 40 CFR 122.21 (q) Note: The following farm will not uppear
within the tune frames established in In the Coda of Federal Regulations.
paragraph (dI(1)(ll) of this section. wi.uea coo! eseo-ao-
__________ - 7
-------
FA UTY HAUL:
PORU
2A BASIC APPLI
NPOES
Fon,, App owed
CASH Numb.,
Appvova Espuea XX-XX-XX
-
a 4 ;
Form 2A has been developed in a modutar format and consists of a Baslc Application lnformallon packet and a “Supplemental Application information”
packet. All applicants must complete the Basic Application Information packet. Some applicants also must complete portions of the Supplemental Application
Information packet. To obtain the Supplemental Application lnfonnatlon packet. contal your permitting authority. The following lems explain which pails of
Form 2A you must complele.
BASIC APPLICATION INFORMATtON: ..
53
All applicants must Complete the B41 1c Applicat!on Information ;
packet. - . - - -
5 ,
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION:
A. Expanded Effluent Testing Data. A treatment works that discharges’
effluent to suilace waters of the United States and meets one or more of
the following criteria must complete Pail A (Expanded Effluent Testing
Data) of the Supplemental Application Information packet:
1. Has a design flow rate greater than or equal to 1 mgd, g
2 ls.required to have a pretreatment program (or has one In pIace . o
3.- Is otherwise required by ( Ito permitting autI onIy to provide the ‘
information.
- - - - ,‘ - - -
B. Toxicity Testing Data. A treatment wodis that meets one or more of the
following criteria must com !ete Part B (Toxicity TestIng Data) of the
Supplemental Application Information packet:
1. Has a design flow rate greater than or equal to I mgd. g
2. is requIred to have a pretrealment program (or has one In place). o
3. Is otherwise required by the permitting authorly to submit results of
toxicity tesling.
-. -I-1 4 ’ ’’, ’
-. Indüstflal User Discharges, Pretreatmem, and RCRAICERCLA
/ \Wastes. A treatment works that accepts process wastewater from any
‘ signIficant lrick,stdal users (SIU5) or receives RCRA or CERCIA wastes
must complete Part C (lnduslrlat User Dlschaiges, Pretreatment and
‘ RCRAICERCI.A Wastes) of the Supplemental Application Information
packet. SlUe are defined as:
I. All Industrial users subject to Categorical Pretreatment Standards
under 40 Code of Federal Regulalions (CFR) 403.6 and 40 CFR
Chapter I, Subchapter N (see Instructions); ai
2. Any other Industrial user that:
Discharges an average of 25.000 gallons per day or more of
process wa$lewator to this treatment works (wilh certain
exc islons) 1 or. s
Cont butes a process wastestream that makes upS percent or
more of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity of
this treatment plant; of
c. Is designated as a SIU by the control authority.
Refer to the Instructions for further explanation.
D. Combined Sewer Systems. A treatment works that has a combined
sewer system must complete Part 0 (Combined Sewer Systems) of the
Supplemental Application Information packet.
a
I
b.
J ± ALL APPL$cANTS MUST COMPLETE THE CERTIFICATION ON PAGE 7 -
EPA Foim 3510-2A (flov. 9-95). Roplucus EPA FoIffis 7550-61 755022
-------
4. PopulatIon. List 1w mwildpa ties or areas served (mw dpahbes and ieou.,,.ted ssMcs
areas). Al.. list thee pop atlons g the blat pop. o.i served.
cculalioti Serimd
3 , - -.- -. V -
Tetelpqndatbonseru4 .
L Flow. ladonto the deut biluent flow rate ci yoiw b aDnent plant Ii.. Its wasteontor lore
rate that yost plant was ,tl to hand.). Also p.iMdo 1w average dativ low raw and
ma*ivium daily vets kir each gi the last live. v °’s• Each yew. data muss bs based one
12-month Ime penod. Widi the 12th month of ‘this yea? oonum g no mors than three months
pd orto l iuageflrebonwbofuat
a. assign ma*hnwn daily lnlhaent low rate ______
‘ I Two Years A Last Yeaz ThIs Year
b. Annuci average daily low rate ________ _______ ________ mgd
c. Maulmum daly flow rate _____- _____ ______ wgd
S. Collection System. bidosle th. type(s) ci e .Ue system(s) bib ItIs haStiest
plsnt Check isU that apply Ni . qsflmata the perowit nenuibubon (by ra) O ppri
. —%
Sep tale sasvboy sew f
S )
t_ Co bbed sto mondsapltasy sower - -. -
7. billow end Infihirstion. Estimate lie average number of gallons per day list law Ira
eatfflantw0IlsS tram inflow and’or lilksljon.
___________ gpd
Snotty explain any steps tsidereay or plarmed to mbwnlze bilow aid kthlrabon.
FA UT1 Plans: NPOS5 PLRUIT NUMBER:
1. F.dUty Inloimatlon.
Mailing address
Content person
ISPA I D NUMBER;
(kv.S6ciaI s. ontj )
TREATMENT WORKS: -
All gras Wmuit Wasiti tluqOlimphe. thJ . ala Application b4orptatlqn pedal -
Fwm Appawd
1 o*oa Msmbor
I Arpsovof Eqira.
2.
Ti le . . - ‘ - ‘
IS L
Phonemarber
FecAIty wlàeas S
(nolPOBos) - :
Applicant hiloonatben. It 4w spp’ ’d Is Ilerent horn Set above. previde the loliowu )
)
Applicant nam -‘
MaiWig sdóess
Content person
‘ - -
-- I
-Phon,mimbst A -
3 . 7
Is Si. applicant the owner or operaWa for bolt) ol this Deahnentwodus?
— owne r — operator — ether (dasathe)
k dcate wtielier rerraspandenre regardng Ida paniut sho4.dd be doectad to the I edify or
lie applicant
— laclity eppicant
Eulafing En*onm.nlal Pannita. ProvIde the penisi nisaber of any esluteig
envvori’nerivj permits that have been issued to yost facility (milude state-Issued iemtIts).
NPDES PSO
L uG ________________ Other
RCRA _______________ Other
S. Topo r.ptilo Map Attach to Ida application • topographic map of Its ares extenIng at least
one mile beyond property boundaries This map muss show the outlits o l1w facility and Its
hollowing inlo,maDon (You may submit more than one map done map does not shots the
entire ares)
‘A Fomi 35l 2A (Rev 995) Replaces EPA Forms 7550-6 1 755022
PAQ 0F7
-------
a.
or
C)
0
z
0
14
Co
a.
Co
a.
Co
CD
0
or
0)
C D
I1
0
-a
0
or
a.
CD
en
C l
14
U’
Fern, Approved
0MB Number
Approvd Expires XX.XX.XA
FA UT NAME: I
I
INPDES P(RItlT NUMBER:
I
I
I
IEPA ID NUMBER:
rvflcaIus.or$)
I
10. Bypass. (eontd)
S. Does your treatment plant have bedu genaraters is allow plant operadon arid
beatment b continue thtmg power outages?
__Yes _Ne
II. Olsthargse end Other Disposal Methods.
Doe, you, PoiiDnsnI wadis dsdwgeeflus,d te wsws of u . us 7 ( Waters 01 the
us • . . delsied in me rnmctons I
Byes. list 1 naany of .edi of the helow ig s el discharge points your treatment
, WOIU5S :
:
\ Olsdwfge$o (trsd.flttjnt ____________
‘ ‘S ‘1
DIscharge 01 untreated or pdal)y treated sil areti ______________
bypass pc nte)
Contfrvedslmereveikwpolnta ___________
Topographic Map (cont d)
a. The area suiTounding the beabnent plant. inckntng ad isul processes
b. The pipes or other structuros through which wastowater enters the treatment worlis and
the pipes or other stn 1ures through which boatod wastowalar is diediwgod from lie
Ba ilment plant Indude outtalis from bypass piping. I I appbcable
C. Eacti wel where wastewaler born the treatment plant Is mjeaed underground
d Weds. springs. other surface waler bodies, and die*i ,q water wells that are: 1) widtin
114 nuts of lie property bcundanes oldie Deaarant works. and 2) hated in pthllc record
or otherwise known so tie apphcanl.
S Any mass whore the sesage sk.e e pudirced by the boabnant women tailored,
treated, or disposed
I. If the treatment wadis mcswes waste that Is dass died es hazardous under the
Reso.irca Conserwation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by truck, rail, c i apedal pipe. stiow(
en the map where that halaidaus waste eflhSr the bOatmen) Warts aitd where It is ,,
treated, stored. snd’ur disposed . -
B. Process Flow DIagram or Scheniasic, Provide a diagram showing lie processes o’ me
Beatmen l plant, mduoriq all bypass piping. i1ao provide aerator balance showing all ..
treatment units, .ncfi ding disinlecSon (a g • 4tionnabon end clodilorination) Th. water
balance must show dirty average flow rates at mlluerit and dicharge points and
appiusumate daily ho v roles botween treatment units Include a bud nana!iee desalpbcn of
lie diagram An esample eta typical diagram us shown en Figure Aol die instructions
10. Bypass. Does your treatment plant have the utility to bypass untreated or pailafly treated
wastewater?
_Yes,,_,,_No
U no. answer only parse
e. How many times at the pasl 12 months has your treatment plant bypassed untreated
or pertidly voated wassewater?
Wet weather _____incidents (_ actual or — appoa)
Uryweather snc idenhs(_actualor_app lox)
b What was the storage diration per bypass incident?
Wel weather ______ hours ( — actual or — appies)
Dry weather _____hoass (,,,,,, _ actual or — appros)
C. What was the aver age vokens per bypass Incident?
Wet weather ____million gallons (_ actual or — apples)
Dry weather ____milbcql gallons (_ actual or — approx p
d. Bnelty esptam why bypass ocours at yew treatment plant
b Does your treatment wodes discharge efltusni lo basins, ponds, or other awlacs
knpoundinsnte that di nod have outlets disokerge te waiwa ellis US 7
_Yss _No
r. .1
It yes. provide die folkiwkig far each pnleee mxly xbnen
Location of each sisfacs bnposmdinenUs)
Annual average deify vokime discharged to saidsew brçoundinent(s).______
Is discharge _conthwoua or — kitemustont?
c. Does your treatment works tend-apply tested wastewaler?
,,,,,,,,, .,Yes , , ,_,,,No
If yes. provide the blowing for each tend anelcatien site ’
t i 1
Numbered wea
EPA Form 3510.2* (Rev 99S) Replaces EPA Forms 75506£ 75b0-22
PAGE 2 OF 7
-------
— Yes — No
U yes, also complete Pail Dc l the Supplemental fçpflcoflan tnlaimaben paclieL
t
,
c. .
Does your Vua Iwdscherp.er dispose ci be wutews* is memier not
locka d l lie. - lie obese (eg. tmdergmundpesaolabon, well k4ecocn)?
. c
No ‘
fr
Ilyos. provide Via PMlcwMq
Descilpilon 01 method (Including location end sb. clefts(s) I spplic.ble):
-;
Annual da2y wiume thpos.d olby this method:__________________
Is disposal through this method _canthuious or —
$2. 1sda,elInd%.,tR 5 sslv i tlon. •
. •
Is your uatinent wadis loestad ens Fe ad hdiis Resesvaumt ,.
p
Yes . NØ / .. -
b Does your Deabuent wadis dsctiatge to a receiving water thetis either on aF lerd
indan Ressnvaaon or that Is ups esm hem (and evemualy laws lumigh). Federal
loden Roseivation?
_Yes _No
a lithe answer to 12 1. cr12 b. Is Yos.bdelly desathe.
EPAIDNUMBEA: I
FAUUJY NAME: .LINPDESPERUITNUMBER: I
OMBMUflber
Appru .sX XX-XA
ii. Discharges sad 0 1 1w, Disposal Methods. (canrd)
Annual a iersg dely voAtme sppllsd to silo ________________
Is land app i_ continuous er _Iniumtittanl?
d. Does your bealwsnt wadis dechaigeor canspal Dested c i imeested wastawater to
another treatment wadis?
ii. Dlsclwrgss and 0th., DIsposal Methods. (oonrd)
ProvIde the ave, daly flow rats horn yaw boabnent wadis Into V i. reoelving facility.
mgd
.. Does your heabnent works Include combIned sewer ovaiflows?
— Yes — No
Descilbe th. mean(s) by which Via wastawsier from your treatment wodil Is disd ged
or transported to the othqr tra*nord wadis (eg., tank buck.
S S -
S S S.
S i ‘S
A
Sr
UPsespodbWapai1ycV terth a nthsepp oanLlwovIds -.
Transporter name ____________________________________________
Mailmg . ess _________________________________________________
PhOemet ibol ’ r
-S
1-Ito
:
S - • - S ,
-_ ‘ -
: .-
toe iocelvee g 1 5 d,diaS , a0vide toe tobaing:
.4
“I
0
( 0
‘ 5
0
2
0
14
Name ‘
MailIng addiess
ill.
Phone number
U 1wown presdo the NPDES pennit number I thetreatnent wadis that receives this
discharge
FPA Form 3S 10-2A (Rev 995) Ra !aces EPA Forms 75508£ 755022.
PA(’ 3OF7
-------
14. Schsdufed Irnprov.m.nts. Sclredul.. of knpl.m.nt.don. Provide lnlormallon on oily
unccmpleted implementation schedule or uncompleted plans kit impiovement, that wil elted
the wastewaler treatment. eliluent quality. or design capacity ol your treatment wadis II yew
treatment wadis has several different umplementebon sdiediies or Is planning several
knptovements. si mh separate responses to ques iti 14 Icr ascii (II none, go to the
darecbons at the bottom ci this page)
— Yes — No
c. Provide a nsnatlve desa .liwi of each kepruvement required or plameed I cr
outfall(s) hated In 14a
fA UTY NAME:
NPDES PERMIT NUUSER:
I IEPAIDNUMSER:
I Ilfor ciflciaS use aiify)
11. Cl
Ate any operational or matnienanru aspects (related to wasinwater treatment end effluent
quatily) of yew treatment worlis the rospons.bi ty of a conflactor?
_Yes _No
U yes. hat the name. ad*ess. telephoi e nuirther and slates of each contractor end desaibe
the contractors respcns9irbbes (attach additional pages ii necussluy)
Form Approved
1 0MB Number
- - Approval Expires XX.XX-XX
II. Scheduled lrnpxov.m.nt. Sch.dulss ci knplsmentstlon. (ccntd)
Planned kidupendendy of any reqithiment ci local, state, or Federal agenoes
Meltrig ad*ess
TSISpIIOnS number
Roapensbtoes c i eonvacto
a. Usi the outfal number (assigned kiquestion 15) Icr each oullal that Is covered b 7 thIs
kmplemeutation schedule
b
d Provide dis p*opossd øea thsdntfwtldel)f klth*ltf dudgri Sow rate (ii epphcable).
____—
j Provide dateS traposed by 1y compliance Uchi duIe or any adiati dates of completion
i lot the briplemantation steps hated below. . 5 sppticable For improvements planned
kidependenti ci local, slate, or Fsderal agencies. ridGed planned or actual
tmpletio.14stes. as applicable bicicalo dates as accurately as possible
5cl io&le Actual Compleson
Implementation Stage MO I DY! YR MO I DYIIR
• Begri consbudfon _J_J_ _ji
• End construction ,_J_l_ ,,,,j_i_
• Begki dascharge _1_I_. _l_I_
Attaki opsi tial level .. ,_J
L Hs ., af prepdate pottoitcideatanows cencenthig oS ei Fede,eYsiata roqitliumeilta been
obtained
_Yes_No
Deaa&ie bdefly
Required by local, state, c i Federal agencies
Yes No
sduedtAe :
PSI
( 5
‘ir THIS TREATMENT WORKS DISCHARGES EFFLUE TO VATE I9 OF ma UNITED 8T ES lAS DEFINED N THE j
INSTRUcTIONS), GO TO OUES1ION 15 . -
1 s — 4 4 ” . .,
.,ir rfts TREATMENT WORKS DOES t QI DISCHARGE EFFUJEIIT rO WATERSOF’ HE tiNrrEb STAtES (AS DEFINED IN
ThE INSTRUCTIONS) DO NOT COMPLETE QUESTIONS 1518 . INSTEAD, GO TO QUESTION 19 (CERTIFICATiON
STATEMEN). ;‘ t .
I. L,’ , — I
NOTE: You may lisa be required 1 a complete portions of the Supplemental Ap IIcatIon IntOimation Packet. See the - ‘ . p.”
Application Overview tar more Information. - -
EPA Form 35 10 .2A (Rev 995) Replaces EPA Forms 755066 7550.22
PAGE 4 OF 7
-------
(City cr n. II appfloeUe)
(Cou%ty)
(2t Codo)
(Slats)
,_-.. ‘... ,.‘
M
,
—
- I.-.•,—’.
I. Cddcal bw flaw ci laceiwlag sveam (ii spplk 1o).
_____________________________________________________________ f — • ‘, ‘ - r : ’ .
Ow ls Cfs diipiiIc_‘ _ d o
‘I TctsIllstdna eiIsc.lvklg ssa&n it cnflc4 ’ flaw (9
_____ _____________ ,
IL Dss dpUsn olTcàmisIlL
a V iat Is th H hesI level ci liasisisni (N any) ptowlded us sdwps from th ou d?
L_psim.iv _Sscon iy .. ... jivcisnt is u.cqn y
_Advsnosd _Oth.r. Dsscth.:______________
b Incicels lii big mmovst rats. (us siX - s) :
, ‘. I ‘ -4 s
,. ‘• . I
DotIgnCBOD,twuopd , —/ c s ” ‘V S
:
Dss*gnSS,wnovald 2’ - •‘: -
Design Prsmsvd ________
Des lgnNremcvd — 5
Cthei ________________________ ______S
_Ocsan — - c. What type 01 sbiIsdlonIs used ior the .ffr snt from 11 s ouNd? U sbdsdon vwlss by
b Nam. ci mcslvbig watsr______________________________ season, pleas. dusaths.
a Name otwa &isdith&svsam sysism:
Uduisde i la byd iiis i. Is dud 1osVtatIon uusd lot N tIs et4 l7
Yes_No
d. Does th. DeaSneid plant have pdbi serabon? — Yes — No
iy ’ i -- -
c. CIstanasDein pp. kibl) ‘:.•1
‘ I i ,
d Depth below sudoe (UappIc*Ne) ‘ .r -- .‘Y - P
,• • t,, .. ..<‘ ,
• Averagedeilylowrsls I • - -
/ ..
• boudelIed wtsimissnIstapeitsi9cdsdturge?
— Yes — No (gob 15 1.) IVy... peed, the blowing kio.msdcn:
ft.
II ”
.
°‘9
-
Nwnbst ci m.slye ducharg. osais
Average thialsi, oteediduduargs
Average flow pet idimrge ,, ,
sthdhdiarg.es
9 lsoid , ithsd1bii? , , , , ,Yq ,,,,,,No
usc. desabs Ilesst type (a g.. higMate)
Descilpdoo SI RessMmg Waists
•
a Type:
•. Olitlal teether
b Lccalion
Ferm4ç omd
O WMes&er
Appessl Eqa XX.XX.XX
IS.
11
Other:
EPA Penn 35*O2A (Buy. 995). Replsc.s EPA Fomts 55045 1550-22.
PAGE 5 OF 7
-------
FA UTY NAME:
EFFLUENT TESTING DATA:
AD tjthaithfUuenIio water. o! the Unltcd &taIes mu.; complete quesson 18
IS. Elflueat TestIng kilormatlon: Conventional and Nonoonventlanal Pollutants. All applicants that atseharge to waters at the United States must piovida ef 1unt telang data for the lolowh ig --
pollutants Pmvide the Indicated effluent testng inlormahon requi.ed by the pemulting authority for each autlal threuch which aifluent Is scharoed . Do nat Include micimaSon on combIned
sewer otmiffows hi tIft sodion All Infosmatuon reported must be b3sed on data coIlo cid through analyses ccnó.icted suIng 40 CFR Pert 136 method.. In s tlcn. this date mist comply with
OA C eqsAmmenis of 40 CFR Pail 136 and other appropnaie OA.OC requirement. lot standard methods lot snatytes not addressed by 40 CFR Pod 136. At. mInimum, effluent testing date
must be based on at least three pollutant scans Retort. the mstiucbons for hither explanatIon and lot specific pollutant scan rerpdremenu..
utf.I mjmber __________(Complete quesbon
- . .
pAnamçTEn
. SüXIMLJMDAILY VALUE
AVERAGE DAILY VALIIEI.
vaiui
it
—
Unite
Plimtbe,otSum$.s
pH(MnfPMx)
•
FkiwRate
.
Temporstwe (Winter)
..
Temperature (Summer)
‘
i r a
. i - c. . ’
I
.
CASNEO TRYNUMBER.r
MAXIMUM DAILY DISCHARGE
AVERAG DALY DISCHARGE
ANALYTICAL.
)‘ METhOD.
,
.
CO . ‘; 1 L
CONVEN11ONAL AND NONCONVEH11ONAL COMPOUNDS. —
.
AMMONIA (as N)
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN . 3005
DEMAND (Report orm) - CBO D•5
CHLORINE ( OTAL RESIDUAL TAC)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Cot,
— -
—
. ..- ._ ..
! ,
>.
><
> c j
•
,
>,<
,
.
.
>?
:.
-<
<
:: :: :
:;:
—‘
.
-
T
..•
..
ENTEROCOCCI
FECAL COUFORM
:>(Z
<
>
><
_____
HARDNESS (sir CACOJI
KJELOAHL NITROGEN
NITRATCINITRIIE
OILandGREASE
.
PHOSPHORUS (Total)
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS ( ISO)
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOUDS (TSS)
OTHER
‘I
C,
c it
CS
•ri.u co I EPA I D PlUMBER:
I I fo,offjcsaIuseu, jI
I
‘I i
i_± . f .
FPA FII,TTI liifl.7A IRpir g.95 ) Rir.ince, EPA Forms 1550 66 75 0 .22
PAGE 6 OF 1
-------
0 BasIc Application InformatIon packet
MUST
.-2.
-A -
0. Pad A (Expanded Effluent Testing Data)
Pas1 flpxIc*y Testing: BbuS iortnó Datay-ç
Pad 9 (Irdjstrtal Use placharges. Pmtreatmen1 and ROANCERCIA Wastes).
(Coiyli$ned 6e weq8ysiemsj I
“ q, cERT I n 9AT I 0N . ,
a
H
a’
Co
a
I ,
Upon recpiest of the perdifing aithorly, you mist submit any other Information necessary to assess wastewater treatment practices at your treatment works of
Identify appropitate pemdftkig recpslrements.
0.
C
C D
to
I certify under penfly of law that this documerl and aD attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance witti a system designed to
assure that q.saUf led personnet property gather and evaluate the Information submitted. Based on my Inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system
or those persons directly responsible for gathering the Informat ion, the Irdorrnatton is, to the best of my knowtedge and belief, true, accurate and complete. I am
aware that there are slgnif ban penalties for submitting false Infonnatlon, Incksdlng the possibility of fine and Imprisonment for knowing violations.
t *.tk asar’au - /‘
11 Name and official tile ________________________________________________________
sS (1
u
Phone rmnter
Date signed
Send this completed applIcation to:
-s&t.*
jp r
,.
,-
V
. - .s .r C i
N. . -.
t.fl-,n
..
r
si
! § ç
i.4 sr
\‘
...- -
‘ -- i —
i - i
4 1
si
- ‘• -.
-
•
-
Send information concerning permit fee to:
AaUrv HAMS; - - ,‘UtD nni psuuctn:
CERTIFICATION:
—i
-I IEPAIDHuMeER
I 1 1 k v official use ae4
I
19. Indicate whIch parts of Form 2A you have completed and are submIttIng:
Supplemental Application Information packet:
i*iiofp P! pfIoss t r4 t0 çeiti&aIlon4 n epp .ni musIwntpa p1
kf sø ! !coPiMeQ 1Id,r 9!.
ise ,asiDasharacIDvlottrId 1uspaLcauenlssubagnacL ?’ - - - -‘ k.. :.“z
F e —
oAam&e
ApwoS Espies XX-XX-XX
I .
N
EPA Forts 35102A ffisv. #95). P iptcss EPA Porno 75504* 7550.22.
PAGE 70F7
-------
Fonn Ap .d
OMSN*SITPM?
Appiuv& Eirp’ss XX.XX-XX
1 JEPA1DNUMBER:
I I w ff da? ‘ . ‘w
Form 2A has been developed In a modular formal and consists of a Baslc Application Information’ packet and a Supplemental Application lnformatlon
packet. All applicants must complale the Basic Application Information packet. Some applicants also most complete portions of the Supplemental Application
Information packet. To obtain the Supplemental Application information packet, contact your permitting authority. The following Items explain which parts of
Form 2A you must complete. -
C. industrial User Discharges Pretrea!rnent, and RCRAJCERCLA Wastes.
5 A treatment works thai accePts proceO wastewalsr from any significant
‘ industrial users (SIU5) or receIves RCRApr CERCLA wastes rust
/ Con ,lete Pak C (industrial User Discharges. Pretreatment and RCRN
“ bERCLA Wastes) l the Supplemental A$i flcaUon Information packet.
SIUS are defkied u ..
- 1. AS lndus ifal users eubM to Categorical Pretreatment Standards under
40 Code p1 Federal Regulations (CFR) 403.6 and 40 CFR Chapter I,
Subchapter N (see instiuclions): am.;
2. Any other Industrial user that:
a. Discharges an average of 25,000 gallons per day or more of
process wastewater to this treatment works (with certain
. -‘. exckisIons); or
b. ‘Cohtrioules $ process wàstesiream that makeS up 5 percent or
- mire of the avenge dry reather hy&’aullc or organic capacity 01
.IhIs treatmef ptati; C V. , ,.
C. Is designated as a SIU by the control authority.
1. Hasadeslgnftowrate1 mgd,g
2. Is required to have a pretreatment program (or has one In place), g
3. Is otherwise requIred by the permitting aulhonlty to submit resuits of
toxicity testing.
A UIT NA :
NPDES PERMIT NUMBER:
-:
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION INFORMATION
NPOES _ C - . :- - • - . , , . .
APPUCATION OVERVIEW ——
BASIC APPUCATION INFORMATION:
All applicants must complet, the BasIc Application Information
packet.
. 5
SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATiON INFORMATiON: - .
. •I
A. Expanded Effluent Testing Data. A treatment works that discharges.
effluent to surface waters of the United States Snd meets one r Snore âf
the following criteria nvet complete Part A (Expanded Effluent Testing’ f
Data) of the Supplemental Application Information packet:
1. HasadeslgnflowraleImgd,or
2. Is required to have a pretreatment program (or has one In place),
3. Is otherwise required by the permitting authority to provide the
Information.. -.5, ‘ S.
-S S
B. ToxlcNy TestIng Data. A treatment works that meets one more 61 thé
following criteria most complete Part B (Toxicity Testing Data) of l)ie J
Supplemental Application Information packet:
Refer to the lnstiu Ions for further explanation.
0. CombIned Sewer Systems. A treatment works that has a Combined
sewer system must complete Part D (Combined Sewer Systems) of the
Supplemental Application Information packet.
• • • . - - —: : ‘ • -r “ .‘ ‘
REMINDER: MAKE SURE YOU SIGN ThE CERTIFICATION ON PAGE 7 r
OF THE BASiC’APPUC TIO 1 INFO IMAT ON ‘AÔKET.. 3 5
— 3 .% • ‘ $ ,5•’_’ . .
COI C....,. 1 IA A Iflnv OQ flp 1 i ’ EPA Fonna 755045 7550-22
-------
‘OI6 aIuseanW
STING DATA ‘
Fown —
o’w
Apçvued E..
Fitluant T.silng: I mgd and Pr.trostmsnt Treateani WeiSs. It yew baIlment we iSs lisa a dasign uspadty greater than or. nd te I n d er I twa
or otheiwise iequuedby lie penonusig aulionty te provkle lie dais. then provide effluent tasteig data ha lis Iollowkig polutants. Provide the b roisd effluent taslng Ideimaban end any oiler
rmaecnrequwed by the pesmtatag atatu • •- - ,h efffuentIithcharqe 4 - - - _ — - - -
mull be baied an data colected vsugh atl&ysas ndectad ulvig 40 GFR Pail 136 nethods. In a iffnn lU d Ma musl pa iedthGM C 1 i.ip*,ment, V 140 CFII Pail 136 end ether a s eSne
OA OC requvemenis lot alanderd methods or andytes nIl .d u,ed by 40 CFR Puit 136 buikata In the Mink rows proiddsd below any data you may hays Sn pollutants Des sper” y Ustad In
this lorm Ala minimum el ienItaabrg data must be bused on al least three pollutant scans. ReIst to 1h leitsuctena lot erseplansban and tar speci cpoilitaM scan ,s áisms. .
7
r i ir. • ‘ . i. ..-
POLLUTANT ’ ’ 4 MAXIMUM DAILY DISCHARGE
CAS REGISTRY NUMBER I Cn Its
I
1:
I
a)
P1
an
I D
a)
ntal numbel __________ (Complete questun Al onus
METALS
ANTIMONY
FPA Form 35*0 2A (Rev 995) ReDuces EPA Fo ns 755066 155022
PAGE 1016
-------
FA UTYN*NE: I
I
INPOESPERUITNUMBER:
I
I
I
IEPAIDNUM8ER:
I( voaus. 4)
Faire Ap d
0MB Mmib.r
Approval Expc.a XX-XX-XX
AtaI minthel (Complete qiesnre A I ku aech ou eI dsdueamc effhmnt ku waters al w United States)
‘POLLUTANT MAXIMUM DAILY DISCHARGE
ASREGIS1RYNUMBER Cane I LMIta I iia I Unite
— . - .
‘AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE - ANALY ICAL
Co lUniMas jNnnbaivI .. IEThOD
.1 . i - — Santples - -
-
MLIMPL
- —
gETALS (TOTAL RECOVERABLE) - Cy !DE.flD PHENOl (conrdj_
TWA WIJM
7440-200
ZINC
744056-6
.
“
.
• .- - -
‘ ‘
CYANIDE -
57-12-5
PHENOLS.TOTAL .
-
‘
.
5
‘
‘
:‘
‘
.
-
‘.
.
- -
-
---
y 1
Use lO specs (ore separate sheet) te
poi4cle butonnanon on other metals requested by the
permit wntor.
-
•
:: ‘
:
S
..
. 5
5
:
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS.
AcROLEIN
107-02-0 6
ACRYWNW LE
107- 13-1
BENZENE
71-43-2
BROMOFORhI
75.25-2
.
•
..
. -
.
-
-.
CARBON TE!RACHLORIC)E
56-23.5
-
. .
.
- -
St
CHLORO BENZ NE
1 0 690-7
.
.
... S
CHLOROOISROMOMETHANE
124-4 4-1
CULOROETHANE
7500-3
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYL
ETHER 110-75-0
CHLOROFORM
67 . 56-3
DICHLORO BROMOMETHANE
75-27-4
I .I-DICHLOROET I4APIE
15-34 3
I2-D ICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
TRANS- 12-D ICHLORO-
ETHYLENE 156605
a-
a
EPA Faire 35 10-2A (Rev 9-95) Replaces EPA Forms 7550 61 7550-22
PAGE 20(6
-------
F mi .4pp’owJ
.1 0MB Numb.,
AppiuJVci E4vz81 XX-X%-XX
m
FAaLITV NAME: NPDES PERMIT NUMBER:
AIaU manibev_______ Ccin 4et. qus, n A I. un t cech oizhl didi ai c elikient I c watem ci the United Statee )
I IEPAIDNUUBER
I I(101oSftcJa11as.ant )
“3
U)
C D
Ca
‘ MAXIMUM DAILY DISCHARGE -
I’ ’ I . I
COMPOUNDS. (card)
AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE
°. I ’
-
METIIOD
-
‘.‘ 1
-
-
‘
-. I
. ..
- ,
5
•
S
S
S
•
‘
‘
-
-
‘
‘.
-
-
“
.
S
‘
.
—.
‘
.
,
—
;
-
-
.
CHLORIDE
TETRACHLOROETI4ANE -
‘
.
f
.
‘
.
-
-
I
1
(
‘
r
-
.
S
S
;
•
-
S - -
,
. -
55
( ssepsrN ee ro I abcsonathec
vo1aHsctgetuc cnçctalds
re ss.Isdby
the petnul wilIer.
I
--
EPA Form 35 10 -2A (Rev 9-951 Reptacs. EPA Forms 7550-46 7550-22
PAGF ‘16
-------
•11
0
-2
I A
0
C.
z
0
I , ,
r .
IA
0.
:3
4.
C
C,
0
1
05
(C
I D
c -n
-$
0
3
f - n
(0
0-
( 0
I A
C,
N
U,
c0
AI uI V EsAM :
Fc.m 4po od
“ ‘
App ovuI Expisea XX-XX XX
IEPA ID NUMBER:
I ’ ot50ai use
I
I
i
P P S PERMIT NUMBER:
i
I
I
A1a1 ounthei (Complete quesbon A I. cs toi ends ouIla óscharotnq effh,ent to wateri o( the Umted S )
‘ POLLUTANT
CASR ç STRYNUMBER
- .
MAXIMUM DAILY DISCHARGE
AVERAGE DAILY DISCHARGE
AlIALYTICAL
METHOD
MLIMDL
-
u , 1 . u
i
I m ’t
• -. ,- - i i ‘I °
ACID-EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS
(conrd)
.
4 6-O1NlTRO -GCRESOL
534 -52-I
.
2.4- DINITROPHENCI.
51-285
—_________
2-NITROPHENOL
8I-7S 5
.
1
-.——- - — .
.
—
-
4-NITROPHENOI.
1 0 002-7
.
.
.
.
•______
- — -—
PENTACIILOROPHENOL
8786-S
.-.
——
PHENOl.
IM 5.2
.
24 .8-TRICHLOl CPHENOL
80-062
Use Sic spoon (o,. sopawvi sheet) to
po ido in1ocmet n another Bc*d -esuaGlal3 e compounds
•
-
-__.Ii___-
BASE-NEUTRAL. COMPOUNDS.
—__________
— ———
-— —
—-
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
.
—
CENAPHTHYLENE
206964
ANThRACENE -
;
— —
120-12-7
BENZ ID INC
92-87-5
BENZO(A )ANTHRACENE
56-553
-
.
r iPYRENE
50-328
3.4 BLNZOFLUOflANTHENE
20 5-99-2
.
— - —
— -— —________
1 YO(OHI)PERYLENE
191-24-2
—
—________
BENZO(K )FLUORANTHENE
207-08-9
-_______
——_____
915 (2-CHIOROETHOXYp
METHANE I Iil-9 1-I
•—————-—_______
BIS (2-CHLOROETHYL)
ETHER 1111.44.4
BIS (2-CI -ILOROISOPROPYL
ETIIE R IIO2-5O.t
——______
—
——-
-
- PAGE4OI6
EPA Fomi 35 10-2A (Rev 9-95) Replaces EPA Fomis 755065 75(0-22
-------
(b
II
0
0)
0
1-3
‘3-
a
0
-I
0)
(0
to
U’
0
0
U S
In
Fwm Appv .sd
EPA ID NUMBER: OMRN.mbuf
AaLJTY NAME PERIRT NUMBER; I 1 (Vb. us•c.i ,) APt OVIJ Ekp,.s XX-XX-ZZ
a)
a)
0
0
Outfd IRUT 5W (COmilISt. JSIIOfl A I. OflOS f eIth I II IO 5O ofthi.M w fS St S Unil d SIal.I)
: . 4UMI 8C i GE . ; MG DALYPISCIIAME NALYTICAL , -
flk*?r I ‘ 1 v f issm stoI 1 ’U TttOD’’
BASE-NEUTRAL COMPOUNDS (oonrd)
BIS (2.ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATEIII7-814
4-BROMOPHENYL
PHENYLETHERIIOI-55 -3
BUTYLBENZYLPHThALATE
8568-7 -
2-CHLOAONAPHTHALENE
91.58 -7 .
-.
“ - -•
“
j
-
•
-
; — - - - - - - - -
___________
.
‘ ‘
- 4
,
- ‘
-
.
.
.
-
4 -CI4LOROPHENYLPhENYLLTT
ETHER 17005-724 ‘4
CHRYSENE -:1
2 (8-0 (9
bI-N-BUTY1. PHTHALATE 1 T
84-74.2 1
DI-N-OCTYLPHTHMATE
( (7-64-0
.
H ‘
1
.
-
:
:
_______
._________
I
)‘
-
- ‘
‘
>
?:i
‘
‘
‘
; .?
s
\)
.
-
\
.
‘
.
-
?
c
SS,
f
‘:
•
‘ ‘
‘.
.
DIBENZO(A.H)ANThRACENE
53-70-3
l,2- OICHLCAO BENZENE
95-50 -I
13 -DICHLOAO BENZENE
541-fl-i •
1.4-DICHLO1 8EPUENE
106 .45-1 4)
J -0ICKLCROaENj 1I
-94 -I
1 ThYL PHTI4MATE
.
- 1
•
-
.
. .
‘Y 3
/
-
-
.
-
L.
—•
-
‘
t
- , -
-
.
.1
‘
- ‘- 5-
.
—
.
5
—
—
—
.
—
-68 -2
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
13 (11-3
2 .4-DINITROTOUJENE
121-142
2.6-DINITROTOLUENE
506-20-2
I.2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
(22-66-7
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
FLUORENE
86-73-1
HEXACHLOROBEPIZENE
I 1 5-74-I
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
67- 6 8-3
FPA Foim 35 10-2A (R.v 9-96) R.placss EPA Fcems 7550-51 7550-22
PA( )16
-------
AaUTV NAME:
uiru r n.l U l .ULfl4
1 ItPA ID NUMBER:
I
1
Fann Ap u .d
0118 Msmb.r
Ap to vat Eqaiu XX-XX-XX
Oiatd minter (Complel.
POLLWANT
l Gi yNBEfl
q s
.
ionA
MAXIMUM DAILy DISCHARGE
.
Ca . I:” =1’ ” I
BASE-NEUTRAL COMPOUNDS (.onrd)
NEXACHLOROCHYCLO-
PENTADIENEI77-47-4
.
I4EXACHLCROEThANE
17.72 1
‘
.
F
‘
44
‘ -.
INDENO(I .2 .3-CD)PYRENE .
193 . -5 4
ISOPHORONE .
78-sq-s
“‘ -
..
-
4
.
I
g
S
%
\ \
‘5’ - .
-‘
b .
— ______________
I
—
NAPHTHALENE •
91-20.3
NITRO8ENZENE
98-8 5-3
- ,
-
.
‘
‘
c
- .‘
—
.
.
..
.
-
‘
—
....
.
.
N-NITAOSOOI .
N-PRflPVIA 51NF 2141-7
NI-NITA0 80 0P4IMETHYLANINE
-
;
s
.
.
‘
‘
4
4.
)
•
8,.75.q
NI-NITROSCOIPHENYLAMINE
88- ftA
PENENANIHRENE
a_c- ni. .
PYRENE
129 -004
._____________
124-TE CI ORO S EHZENE
52 0 . 82-I
-
m
‘
-
.
-
:
.
‘
-
Us. (is sp (ora u.par. shell) b prov4 kilormalion on other bss . -n .vW.Iconipaunds ,aq es d by (is pens. wiflsr
.1 I I I IlI II I 1
Us. tds spore (ore sep.rs sheet) b pro kilormation on other polulwils (eg. pesbcsdes requssIsd by th. permit wit.,
I I I I 11111 I I
S • S -, )5 “ ‘ -‘ — s
-. . END 9F. CART ‘ a
. : .: EFERTQ THE APPLICATION
WHICH OTHER PARTS OF FORM 2 :y9U MUST COMPLETE.
-— , • 4’,
I
EPA Fonn 35 102A (Rev. 9-95) Replaces EPA Forms 755041 755022
PAGE Sole
-------
FA IUTY NAM : - 1 JNPDES PERMIT NUMBER :
FORM - :‘ - - -
2A PN3TBS:TPXIP!1YTEST!NGDATA
NPOES “ . ‘ ‘t”
I IEPA ID NUMBER:
_ t I(bfofikA&unonb9)
Fonn Append
OMBManbsv
_____________________________________________ App’eS Lap i n. axx-xx
‘Li- b A ’f ’
A
POTW5 moe*ip at . sm me(thsoo ngatwnpntuat praMs die eat 1.tioteolfiuenEmcid%r b it t (or e4tds ordirpnlebzichp kracltol jt ipp&itwsdSwgs po,n hpÔiWj*
dee n lalluent ties rate açS iogr pester then 1 med or) (i OTWs with a pMnrnØ ptegwn (or itesa thaI nip rsipamdb tipvp am wider 40 CFA PM sj p01 w. quq*sd wW4
pe fnbt f ln g wthodlyteutenddnia l w f llesapeieinst o rs - 4’ -- •. S. - - . ‘- ‘- ‘
Ass mt m. titeoe ,osaas imst hwiutle a.rmny esteg tots Il-earth ponodetets the peet a n s i u$ng m i dUple spades awWmumø hyq species) widsing lerpas a çe.$y 4? ‘
b*tdty. departing pe the maps.) meshing waist dlMai. (Sea ktssualertsi Do no 1 kISs w mabes onco’tthInsd saw er ontuwi n Nd , anion.”-- - ‘ - :—c -‘ .
In adSden 4 juSt Its resu lts a) sty aunts. pflion$ sylelly tests from frpas dsgoe t ! a Whole .Mt*rfl $Wicdy 5551 WeM$JaSöJAtg di. pa$ Win. i invsS4spsci$ ptuti$p pity
me d UussSSlsddq,wsnymwactaslthyeeMeveltolssfl.pns wsswwssmd , : ----i- • 4 - ‘7 ’ , • ’.
• II yo st have .).tm myof mahdrauen requested fri at1 B. yati flee4 pa( s5 pgcipt fls4taq, ptovwM$sj i*mtedofl flt%USSNdlnqIssde, t5 b PtI’IeWWp 5tA 1W4n “ 4
s l isep - C ’ • •C - •‘• C •‘ “ ‘• “r, - - ‘• - . -“ t-.;’__s - - ‘ - 2 ’ it”,:
flnfllarnmt nppete ssns*atsnmxmpSs Pa l B Ab l e r te S*aaAarn( ai Sseedsatis Mso4s ss*nsl en lo.mWoona • —C • t
RI. RsqulrsdTssl.. I . - A :’ .
5 Indieste the twether of wits. eltiusnl esSay tests conducts Wi 5 5 past three years. - ‘
---C C ’
_________ cheers _________ acute et I
B.2. Indivldusi Test Date. Complete the blowmg diart S s h whole sMuent re s ins sot con&irled hi the lea! three ns a ties ens ce S sn a pet test (Whets each spactes consUMes a NM)
Copy this pegs ii t s than 3 sets era bevig reported
A s 51 nissan 0) eel
atlaI nitnibor
Detee semple collected
irstion
b Give sooty
test methods Mowed
Manuel bUs
Edition number end
year at pubbcaton
Pegs number(s)
S
N
S
N
I
a Test Inlonnation
Testepecass -
Test number
Dee test started —
EPA Form 3510-M (Rev 9-fl) Repleces EPA Forms 75504£ 7550-22
PAGE 1 of 3
-------
Form Appoi.d
c i a
Appuval Eipiru XX- -XN
FA UTT NAME;
1
I
INPOES PERMIT NUMBER:
I
I
I
IEPA ID NUMBERS
I(fo,o1 1s.0nw
U . S. ledividual T.M Data. (conid)
Test number Test n*mtbst Test nuath
c. Give the sample collection method(s) used For mtdaple grab samples. Indate ie n*mtbor of grob smples used
24Hetx cainpotats
Grab
d tnilcate whete the sample was taken at relation to disinfection (dieck al
that apply for each)
Before disinleceon
Aftordismfecbon
)
After dediloratabon
1
,
—
!
• Oesa*e th a
%snt in the Deabuieni pocess at which the sample was collected
Samplewascalected
-
I For each test. indicate whether the test was intended to assess chronic
or acute lexiaty
Chronic toxicity
.
Acute toxicity
o Provide the type of test perlonned
State
<
S a tva l
.
- I
:
Fl •ltwough
--
‘ ‘ !
______________________________
‘
h Sojace c i dibition water U laboraloly water. speedy typo
Laboratory water
Receiving water
.
‘
L lype of dilution water II saft water, specify nabiar or type of wlilld&
salt water used
Fresh water
Sal water
Give the percentage aithient used (or ci i concenvabons in the test series
I
EPA Fo,m 35 102A (Rev 9-95) Replaces EPA Forms 755041 7550-22.
PAGE 2013
-------
I
ft
0
U
0
m
I D
ID
U I
I
. IEP* W IWUUISI:
one’)
4
1 Mai*
I °‘“ -
FA UTY NAME; I
I
INPDES PERMIT NUMUEJI;
I
I
I
0.2. Indlvlduct Tsss Data. (conrd)
Tuit nimiber Tess umibs. Tsst i&ui ber
k. Pat neasa meuuiuddiutng lii test (Provide mbtk,uinlmeslmimil
DN
.
Saktet
Tempcealwe
Amm
oxygen
.
I. Test R.wIss.
.
Acct:
I
rercen r.us W
*00% effluent
‘
%
1
%‘
‘./ i - z
. -• - %
—
%
LC .
‘
/
95% CI
I
Other (desa e)
.
•
.
I
Chmn .________________.
NOEC
.
.
IC 1 ’
Othes(desaibe)
I
in. Conesl mspons.s.
ConDolUc illy ‘ j I
, ,% •
.., ,. ‘.. . - - .
z — . . - . -
0.3. Toxldty Reduction Evaluation. Is yew trsa*aini waits iovolvsd ki a Tozicity Re’ tion 0.4. Summary .tSubmItt.d Olomonitoitig Tess luforaction. If yeu bays sutenliled
Eva luüon? bfl,IIOIiiQ tall inIinmstaoi kdormedon regwdag Ii. cause of texidly. ith n Sm past
lv i i vein. Pcende d i . dates the kilormation was submitted to d i. psunlith ig sitmiby mid
— Yea — No a siinvnary .1 lie isauba
U yes dewlv: Data
Suamnwy of r.aufts:
(so. msmiceons)
: - . . .
- R FER TO ThE APPLICATION OVER VIEW TO DETERMINE . . . .•;, .
- . WHICh OThER PA! T8 O FORM 2* YOU MUST COMPLETE,
r- omi 35102* (Rev. 9.95). Replaces EPA forms 75504£ 7550.22.
PAGE
-------
Ci. P—b— c l WgSuIcsM bidus VS Uss r . ISC.SSgO4CSI (Us. ProwlS ths ,wmbsr s(ssch
sits blowlig typssol kISSeS uses tM dsthsrg. m yo u Vsflnsnl waits
a. isssrci nusaas4 ignucaas a e u .t ’
b Pbav t srclakvoikalfflflldussrs. I’% L
I • -_
_____ I
CS. Avsusgs DsUy Flaw Vs.. lSiptS Uses. E iSa lisps svsr s Si p nsWwsWr
SusSmsiIasstlSuses I J
• ?
a MkISflhSussm. • ø--> P
b NsncstsgadS SN). aSp. — mgd
C. agorlad E nactS uses stEp. — mgd
CS. btdushtsl Use ContrtbulIans. Esina us psms,* bS biiusrs canitilon W satEs ci
v- ulsIallorrlt. c. a — — ‘V
.
!‘ #Iksdu$utSus .4
;? if -t
tP NàsScs1s alcS5lUsar4 I I t t 1%
CagailS EsitistiS uses aSp
Conaflc scuross —
C.4. Prsfrssbnsnl Prsgrsa. Doss yew tsaensnl waits han an .pçirovsd p,svsatm.rJ
r er an? S U ) — :
çP w ;2; ; ;
: •i. ,.._yss. ,f’
r-1 t
f r— •
• pa, hays lists bøqà any s $nvS mothllcflon$ tots tsatmsni woits spp.ovsd
prstaInsnI prflcdm list ban t i M bssn spp’svsd bi noidancs viit 40 C IA 403 107
It psi. Idsn4Iy as a sspe.to Sos ci pspsr sO substaiS motEhcacons ti n han not
ben sppmnd
I
. 1
Form Appnnsd
0MB Numbs ,
App’ovst Erpin ZX-XX-XX
M d dsm1gIdbcwtkIckhVS uswue*tith sSes RCRk w CERC L as i a mus inçisj Pwid. u I ti - - ; . Y ‘ ,-
GENERAL INFORMATiON: —
0.
I
EPA Penn 3510-2A (Ast 9-95) Asplscs. EPA Forms 7550-6 & 7550-22
PAGE 1 ci 4
-------
I IEPAWNUMBER:
I o RcIiI us• oc ’J
Fern, Approrod
1 C*fR M.m si
ApvovaS Ergaia3 X .%XXX
Flow Ash.
a. Process wu wat.r how raw h dcais Pie aver.g. dwtp vohalie pocess
wastewete , dichergsd bdo the cei.chlon system II gdcea par dsp (gpdi end afisthir
l%s didwzgs Is ucntkwoua or ktemilesiil
_________gpd’ (_.eortdnuous or mmnntea nt
4 i . ‘.
-‘ b. Non.çrocafl was*& .vsls, low fete. b ete Pie sieregs diPy ucliew omen-process
wastewater low discherjiid bib the ochlecdan system m gdlons per do, (gpd) aid
‘ Whedief lb discharge Is COI%SI1UCUS ai kite,muhtant
- - ...:—‘ . ‘(__conbnucu. ef . I%termieeffl)
0i Vsti.slmsnl eleodsids. ki cels whether ItKISIU is sut4e to die teloraing.
a Lâcal knots Yes — Pie
b. Categorical pro Voam nt standards V i a —
II iub sct to cstegoncd praoeaPnenl otandaids. ohich crtego.y ejid rub ategor 1 ?
FA tUTY NAME:
NPDE5 PERMIT NUMUEHI
Q,p i• ig Lsd tof .a UJ .:
. c.. r” 1 .
C l. SignIhlesot kidusiha Usom hnterowdea. Provido lbs name end addmu oh seth Sill
distheigktg hyose psaD neidraralL (Sidunit addbosial pages as neCessary.)
Name -
Malkg add. .. _________________________________________________
Cl. kidustilal P ,o’s.. .
lie Silts dsdlstge.
•
.
,... .
4.
4)
.4 ,.
..- —
.
.,
Descuthe ol lbs kidudadprcceuu dish aflsdécentilbuls to
4 ; . .4
—
S.
4, c .
‘—
4$.
‘—4
C.7. Pitacipul Product(s) and Ran Mstsds s).
Pnnc al pçqdiac s): . . ,
• 4!
/ - 5
,1
4’ ‘4
‘ . r b
,
, . —
Pdndps l raw ma lenal(s):
N
0
an
I
0
I . .-
.e.
S..
U
Ui
or.
0
Li
C.IO. P,eblsin. as lbs Traalmsnt Wo:b. ASt,ltpuIsd to Waste Olsdhuged by lb. SIll. lisa the
SIU caused or conpbutad to a. y pobhmi (.9 . uparis. intorfawnor) I1 *i’ to .aeoanl
c i Ih pail htifis yosrat
__Y,s No
ht yes. describe each episode
(PA Form 35102* (Rev 9 95 Ariplacos £PA Fomi. 755081155022
£2014
-------
A 5UUI Mawa:
NPDES PERMIT NUUDEH:
I IEPA ID NUIIBER:
I I(ktoft .Sus.onW
Form Appvu .d
1 0MB
Approval Ex es XX-XK.XX
CII. RCRA Wsst . Doss your hatinsetwodis ecelvs or has It lithe past Itve yeas, received
RCRA hazardous waste by ludi. iii. or dedceied pee?
No ( Q CII.)
C.II. Weal. T,en.pcet. Ilethod by $ild CRA waste is received (died II that spply3:
Tnidi Rs$’ s dI. ‘ ‘ ‘.
CII. West. Dsa$pdon. Give EPA hawdeus waste nun*ss ond asnouni ivahen. or msss
spedly wilts).
EPA Haxaidous Waste NuerM, Amount
-
t, . ——
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER AND RCRA REMEDIATtONICORRL TIVE ACTION WASTEWATER:
3 S 5 — S
CII. CERCLA Waste Does yo* Ieateient wodis ctar*ily (of s ft expeded dislnq th lie of / CI ?. Wa,i. TreetmeaL
this pe,ind that your le.tmetl wrefts ml) mceiyuu.ste tram CERCIA (SupMnid) slte ’
u emedstion7 1 Is this wpaie Seated (or wOmb, treated) p 1W te entering yew trestsnonlwoska?
- I SS SS
Current (complete CII. .0.47.) a.:_Yes (complete 0.11.- Cf 7) - -‘
No No * t S S
— U yes. desath. Ut. treatment (provide Idormalon cuI it. rsinovd elbcisncy)
Provide a Is a of sites end Is roepiested Idonnabon (CII . C u ) r sedi aaire.d end
IsMesit. -
let. CERCLA waste is aisenly iscelved and eons Is expected In Its triMs. got. CII.
b Is the discltorge (or ml It. dsdiasg. be) eon iuous or lntemuasnt?
CII. V st.0it !n Dasalrelwsnswd peetta yat CERCIA waste oetptaI s 4 - -
( $spmled telnthsifstbv. Nre).a1oflawithEPAIDnumbIrs . c -’. -
S. * . -
J ‘ S ,_ eloemdsnt
U literntCtlenL desa*e dsdivge sdiedi e
S
CII. Pelutsats list Is CERCLA polutsnta that wa received (or at. sxpedvd te be received)
liduds dote on volume and condentaten. (Altedi a tioni sheets If necessary)
a t
at
C
a-
C,
C,
•1
-S
0)
0
z
0
1..)
‘3
-S
C D
0-
C D
0.
at
D
CD
n
CD
B
0
CD
-I
0 )
CO
C D
U I
-S
-I
0
.
0
C l )
CD
CD
In
EPA Poem 35 10-2A (Rev 9-95) Re iIac.s EPA Poems 75504 I 7650-22
PAGE 3 014
-------
,AQUTV NAME: DES PERMIT NUMULNI
CI I I 1CRA Conscdvs Adieu West.. Doss iosw hs nsuiI wadis cuirenly ( sit eupeciad
dicing It. I ii. c i his psuisit Stat your hsknsn*woiItawIl) receive wiskis generated ala
sit. widsrg*g RCRA osumedve
Cwrsil Yes (ceinpisis CII - Cl i.) Fuhas; _Yss (complete OIL-Cal.)
_No
CII. W.ss.Odgln
Waste oulginate
‘ .
D.wh. ha sit. aid type oI hay at
.( e ipi ,dteong nat . ).. ,
,
-‘
;
.
•;
V -‘.
cih the RCRA Canich. MIen
¶. .
.
.1
e
- 1’
C l i. Pollutants liii Ii. pdkdanhs contsumd is RCRA corrective cocoa wait. that we received
(or sue expededia ke received). Alladi a ional sheds IS necesiwy.
./
(_.
.
_ v’ _
I,,
‘ ••
.
; —
:
••
..
L’
.
-
‘
.
Y
‘.
.
, ?
6
c:..
Form poved
1 c*laMimo
I AppuvciExpdrss XN3(XU
C II. West. Tresimeni. Is this waste Nested (or ci i itk. Vested) pW te enlsski vuirkeslmeat
wedis?
_Yse ___No
S y.s desc, the Psatmed, rmnovd,Mc1enc . end ks aency ci thdierg..
,
:
:
.
f l ” — W..tss k.u. Rsuvedl.UoNGIssn.up Bk... Deccithe coy westewaiws received by
its ueainei wadis Stat we gensated ala iemsdiaianldeattiap site net listed above 4eg.
baking un sgIound tai l ’ rsmedaten cites end slels.man tud remedialoui sites)
- . -. - —i -- - ‘
‘ !
V. . -
- .,. i -
I ID NUMUER:
I I1 015creI11.or4)
I no RCRAGOITSdips action west. Is cIaTsnIy received end non. is . cprt.d kilt. liSts .,
go to C.22. -
6
Is hi dsdcog. (WW sciarge it.) continuous os kilursnlUeufl?
:1 dg.sdisdii..
-/
GIL
N
0 1
a
01
F
— *
.4
I —
ENDOFPAF1TC
REFEfl TO THE APPUCATION OVERV EWTO DErERMINE
: WH!PHOThER PARTS OF FORM 2A yOUML!STCOMpL TE :
0 14
A Fonu 35102A (Rev. 1.05). Replaces EPA Forms 7550 £7550.22
-------
FA UTV NAME: I 1 NP E5 PERMIT HUMMER :
FORM ‘ . .‘:
2A PART D. COMBINED SEWER SYSTEMS
1•
ilpoa
p. n wvd shasacemblnedsewsrsyetem.compWePaflD. .
, ic ’ -
0.1.
CombIned Sewer Overflow (CSO) Uluchings Point. Provi the mimbef ci CSO
dsdh .ige poui hi the co4nbined sewer system covered by U s applicaion
0.4. System Evalusuten. List below sb ss that hr. beem psilonned abiew Ii. test psvunb
sçplc.ion on Sw coIec on system. b’iduds mo Ing sba ss. hy whc sbi es. pall
— slimis. - — —.
D I
0.3
SystamMap ov idsamup.dcabgths lolowui9: .
5
. Al CSOdsd i.ps pabits
S S S
b. Sensitive use arsu pcisntiaiy affected by C$Os (.. beaches. &inkbi9 Water
supplies. uhelthah beds. mauve .cyuiconosystsms $ e g fe 9 fl %j
issoicce wchirs) .
S
C. Waters liii su eft Swuieuwd rid endangered ap as po enbaliy affeded by CSOv.
System Dlagrsm. Prowids I agam. stherbi the map pro d lii 02 er on a seouate
à..rinp. of the combined sewer reIo eri system thai m .ides the lollowung kilarmalont
D i i “ ‘ .- - .
. -
. •‘ 1. F.. S.X1 .J h . . ..,r T _ X .As sf?
• 5 55
5 S
I
5 .• ;•5 F
0O100.SONNEXTMOE -
4
a. Locations ci mqar seem mink lines, both combred and uamuaiy
b Leo is ci points whom aeperate srisa.y sewois teed unto the combined sewer
system
. Iociso1m nsandotl-knsemragesmilq,s , -
:— —
ut locations ol Row .reguiaing d,v’om.
S. Locations ci puntp suasans
..
5
S S
Farm
49 Manlier
4 vvbid ExpIwa
I
EPA Farm 35 102A (Rev 9 9Sf Replaces EPA Farms 755065 755022
PAGE 101*
-------
a. Dusiww. torn shots (i
d De It bsSow suis.os (II spp e )
0.1. UonIIo.s. . Vflidt me ki sig we a th1iav Its last year
_Rsmlol I _Csp r volIanâ
- - -.
_CSOwstsr tpashty ; .4 4 J .Necu ng wa qiedey
How nwiy slrnm s s wets nondarsdóamg the last year? —
0.7. cso loddeass.
& Givs lie mentor CSOb’ ’—t. ki the last year.
‘5- ’ — ‘. . - . .... - -. - - 5 ’
J ( kd,mte(L __.ac$ul _apgios.) ‘
S j JF ;t
b Oivs 1 w a .CSOk icldens.
‘j ‘& _ f J
_hosxs (_ iulw_sppmz)
a. Give lii svern voketis per CSO Itd st
_mI 1a ons L__.cluMw_ .ppms I
d. Give lie ui1cnum ,int list — a CSO I nt Ii lie last year.
st mMt
OS. Dssczlpdon c i Raoslvbig Waists.
• Type _SDeamlRver _Eslu a ry _Lalts
_Ocean
b Hams ci iecetvma water
0.5. Dssca tIoa .1 R.ssIvlmg Waters. (csnrd.)
(lobed Sisme Sod Consirvidon Ssnscs 14dgl waisrulied os (II ktwwn3:
Survey SdgIt h d cio m uith en (I 1 IowA):
‘: “/ -
)‘ . - ‘
0.5. SO 0!..r.Sons. -
t
S qs Ii. psIi Nied sewer low kokids n tbuusns born sigsuka i Id isUist users?
5-
b. Ouali. eny istoam w.isr quóty knpwes an lie Iscetwig wame nsus.d W Sen CSO
(so. pe manenI ot beach doamgs. pemtanensor liteimifleni siteS I.h bed
dosuigs. ksh ku. Ish dvisonss• other maauonal tosser violailon clan, .pp1i bto
Slais waler qiwuity standard).
t . S 5 • - ‘ 5S ‘. —
/ F “
‘5 - 5 S - - ‘S
C,. ;•
V
I
FAaLJ1’Y NAME:
CSO OUTFALLS
- 1 NP015 P1Ri T NUMUIHS
Ds. Des 10cc ci ill.1l.
a. O elaI isui1w
b. Iaw ..i
I
(City fl. I
______ Face 4 oved
IEPA ID NUMeER : -- 1 Ø Man
(lot cVhdaI ii.s• au I ___ ._ ! E J
( )
C.
s’1
(1) :
N
I
PAtu 2012
EPA Fomi 35 10-2A gRey 9-95) Replaces EPA Forms 7550-6 & 7550-22
-------
Federal Re ster / Vol. 60. No. 234/ Wednesday. December 6. 1995 / Proposed Rules
62611
Instructions For Completing Form 2A
4pplication For a NPDES Permit
zckground Information
Each wastewater treatment works that
discharges treated effluent to waters of
the United States must apply for a
permit for its discharges. This
permitting requirement is part of the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program.
which is implemented by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). You can obtain a permit for your
treatment works by filling out and
sending in the appropriate form(s) to
your permitting authority. If the State in
which your treatment works Is located
operates Its own NPDES program, then
the State is your permitting authority
and you should ask your State for
permit application forms. On the other
hand, if EPA operates the NPDES
program in your State, then EPA is the
permitting authority, and you must fill
out and send in Form 2A.
These instructions explain how to fill
out each question in Form 2A. Be sure
to read the Application Overview
section on the cover page of Form 2A
before you start filling out the form. Not
every applicant will have to fill out
every section of Form 2A. The
iplication Overview section wIll help
.i determine which portions of Form
A apply to your treatment works.
EPA has developed Form ZA In a
moc ilar format, consisting of two
packets: The Basic Application
Information packet and the
Supplemental Application Information
packet. At a minimum, all applicants
must complete the Basic Application
Information packet. which contains
questions 1—19. As directed by the
Application Overview section on page 1
of the form, certain applicants will also
need to complete one or more parts of
the Supplemental Application
Information packet.
Commonly Asked Questions
What If INeed More Space for My
Answer?
Some questions on Form 2A require
you to write out short answers. If you
need more room for your answer than Is
provided on the form, attach a separate
sheet called “Additional Information.”
At the top of the separate sheet, put the
name of your plant. your plant’s NPDES
permit number, and the number of the
iutfall that you are writing about. Also,
ext to your answer, put the question
ether (from Form 2A). Provide this
,,rmatlon on any drawings or other
papers that you attach to your
application as well.
Will the Public Be Able to See the
Information I Submit?
Any information you submit on Form
2A will be available to the public. If you
send iii more information than is
requested on Form 2A that is considered
company.pnvileged information, you
may ask EPA to keep that extra
informatlo’r confidential. Note that you
cannot ask EPA to keep effluent data
confidentiaL If you want any of your
plant’s information to be confidential.
tell EPA this when you submit your
application. Otherwise, EPA may make
the information public without letting
you know in advance. For more
information on r4ninic of confidentiality,
see EPA’s business confidentiality
regulations at Title 40, Part 2 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
How Do I Complete the Forms?
Answer every question on Form 2A
that applies to your treatment works. If
your answer to a question requires more
room than there Is on the form, attach
additional sheets (see above), Ifs
particular question does not apply to
your treatment works, write “N/A”
(meaning “not applicable”) as your
answer to that question, If you need
advice on how to fill out these forms,
write or contact your EPA Regional
Office or your State office at the
following address:
Completing Form 2A
Facility Name and NPDES Permit
Number
At the top of each page of Form ZA,
put your plant’s name and NPDES
permit number (if you already have
been assigned one) in the appropriate
boxes. Also put this information on the
top of any “Additional Information”
sheets you attach. Do not write anything
In the space marked “EPA ID Number.”
As stated above, Form 2A consists of
two packets: the Basic Application
Information packet and the
Supplemental Application Information
packet. These instructions provide
directions for completing both of these
packets.
Basic Application Information Packet
Pape,work Reduction Act Notice: The
public reporting end recordkeeping burden
for this collection of information (the Basic
Application Information Packet) Is estimated
to average 5.3 hours per response. This
estimate includes the time needed to review
instructions: develop, acquire. install. and
utilize and systems for the
parp of collecting. validating. end
verifying information, processing end
maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing Information; adjust the existing
ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions end requirements:
train personnel to respond to a collection of
Information; search existing data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the Information. An Agency may not
wnduct or sponsor. and a person Is net
required to respond lea c cl lec.uun of
information unless it displays a currently
valid 0MB control number.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection
of information, including sugge Iions For
reducing the burden. to Chief. OPPE
Regulatory Information Divis un, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2136i, 401
M St.. SW.. Washington. DC 20460: and to
the Office of Infonnation and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th St.. N.W.. Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the
0MB control number in any correspondence.
Do not send the completed applicatina form
to these addresses.
All applicants must complete the
Basic Application Information packet,
which consists of questions 1—19. Note
that some questions in this packet may
not apply to your treatment works. For
these questions, write “N/A” in the
response space.
Application Overview
Read the Application Overview before
completing any of Form 2A. This
section wIll help you determine which
questions and pans of Form 2A apply to
your facility. Note that the permitting
authority may require you to complete
certain questions or provide additional
Information as welL
As stated above, all applicants must
complete the Basic Application
Information packet. However, only
certain types of applicants will need to
complete the Supplemental Application
Information packet. Refer to the
directions in the Application Overview
section on Form 2A to determine which
parts of the Supplemental Application
Information packet you need to
complete.
Treatment Works
1. Facility Information
Provide your plant’s official or legal
name. Do not use a nirknnme or short
name. Also prbvlda your plant’s mailing
address, a contact person at the plant.
his/her title, and that person’s work
telephone number. The contact person
should be someone who has a thorough
understanding of the operation of your
treatment works. The permitting
authority may cell this person If there
are questions about the application.
Also provide the actual facility address
(If different than the mailing address).
The facility location should be a street
address (not a Post Office box number)
-------
62612 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday , December 6. 1995 / Prt osed Rules
or other description of the actual
location of the facility. Be sure to
provide the city or county and state in
which your facility Is located.
2. Applicant Information
If someone other than the facility
contact person is actually submitting
this application, provide the name and
mailing address of that person’s
organization. Also provide the name of
a contact person. his/her title, and his!
her work telephone number. The
pernutting authority may call this
person if there are questions about the
application.
In addition, indicate whether this
applicant is the owner or operator (or
both) of the treatment works. If it is
neither, describe tue relations’iip of the
applicant to the treatment works (e.g..
contractor). Also indicate whether you
want correspondence regarding this
application (phone calls, letters, the
permit. etc.) directed to the applicant or
to the facility address provided in
question 1.
3. Existing Environmental Permits
Provide the permit number of each
currently effective permit issued to the
treatment works for NPDES, UIC, RCRA.
PSD. and any other environmental
program. If you have previously filed an
application but have not yet received a
permit, give the number of the
application, if any. U you have more
than one currently effective permit
under a particular permit program. list
each such permit number. List any other
relevant environmental permits under
“Other.” These may include permits
issued under the following programs: 1)
Federal; Ocean Dumping Act. Section
404 of the Clean Water Act. or the
Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (2) State: new air
emission sources In nonattainment areas
under Part D of the Clean Air Act or
State permits issued under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act; or (3) local: any
applicable local environmental permit
programs.
4. PopulatIon
Fer all the cities, towns, and
tininrorporated areas served by your
plant, enter the number of people served
by your plant at the time you complete
this form. If you do not know the
population of each area, then only
provide the total population for your
entire treatment works. If another
treatment works discharges into your
plant. give the name of that other
treatment works and the population it
serves.
5. Flow
a. Provide your plants current design
maximum daily influent flow rate.
“Design maximum daily influent r.ow
rate’ moans the average amount of
wastewater flow your plant was
designed to receive on a daily basis.
Enter the flow number in million
gallons per day (mgd). Treatment works
with a design flow less than 3 mgd must
provide the design influer.t flow rate to
two decimal places. Treatment works
that are greater than or equal to 5 ingd
must report this to I decimal place. Ths
is because fluctuations of 001 mgd to
.09 rngd in smaller treatment worl.s
represent a significant percentage of
daily flow.
b. Enter the annual average daily flow
rate, in million gallons per day, that
your plant actually treated this year and
each of the past two years for days that
your plant actually discharges. Each
year’s data must be based on a 12.month
time period, with the 12th month of
“this year” occurring nii more than
three months prior to this application
submittal.
c. Enter the maximum daily flow rate,
in million gallons per day (mgd). that
your plant received this year and each
of the past two years. Each year’s data
must be based on a 12-month time
period, with the 12th month of “this
year” occurring no morn then three
months prior to this application
submittal.
6. Collection Syst!m
indicate what tYpe n c’.i ction
system brings wastow i:.r u ur plant.
Ifyouchcckbothoft!i .’
systems indicated “n the fnr n, you must
also provide an estimate of wnat
percentage (in terms nf tni ec of pipe) ot
your entire ollecnon system each type
represents. For example. 80 percent
separate sanitary sewers would mean
that 80 percent of the actual miles of
pipes are separate sanitary sewers (end
20 percent are combined sewers).
“Separnte sanitary sewer” means a
system of pipes that only carries:
(1) DomestIc wastewater from
connections to houses, hotels, non.
industrial office buildings, institutions,
or sanitary waste from industrial
facilities.
(2) Industrial wastewater received
through conneCtions to industrial plants
or facilities. This consists of water that
is used in the manufacturing processes
conducted at the facility.
• “Combined storm and sanitary
sewer” means a system of pipes that
carries a mixture of storm water runoff
and sanitary wastewater.
7. Inflow and Infiltration
Estinfate, in gallons per day (gpd
average amount of wator that enters
treatment works through inflow and
infiltration. Also explain any actions
you are taking to correct or decrease
inflow and infiltration.
• “Inflow” means that water enters
the sewer system from the land’s surface
in an unconiioilcd way. tjsually. this
happ ns when surface water runs in
through unsealed niannole covers. it
ma also happen when people illegally
connect their foundation drains, roof
leadors. cellar drains, yard drains, or
catch basins u the sewer system.
• ‘Infiltration’ happens when non.
wastewater seeps into he sewer system
from the around. Ground water usually
leaks into the sewer system through
defective pipes. pipe joints.
connections, or manholes.
8. Topographic Map
Provide 3 topographic map or maps of
the area extetiding at least to one mile
beyond tao property boundaries of the
facilit) which clearly show the
Lollowing:
• The area surrounding the treatmenr
plant. ::icluding all unit processes:
• The pipes or other Structures
through i hich wastewater enters ih
treatment alant and the pipes nr oti
structur’ thiough which treated
wasuiwacer is discharged from the
treauzie aI pIa t. Inciude outfali b’im
bypass piping. if applicablo:
• Each well where was!ewnter fro n
the pIaAlt is injected uucia:grouid:
• WeI s. springs. othur surfai. ’ wa ct
bodics. .iitd drinkinq water wni’ :h t
are. 1) Vithin ¼ mile of the p lopcrzv
boundaries of the ;reatment plane.
andl2) 1 sted ir. ‘be pub& record a:
otherwise known to uu;
• Any areas where the ewage sludge
produced by the treatment plant is
stored. treMtod, or disposed:
• If the treamient works receives
waste that is classified as hazaruous
under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) by truck, rail, or
special pipe. show on the map whore
that hazardous wa ste enters the
treatment plant and where it is treated
stored, and/or disposed.
11 a discharge structure, hazardous
waste disposal site, or injection well
associated with the facility is located
more than one mile from the plant.
include it on the map, if possible. If not,
attach additional sheets describing the
location of the structure, disposal site,
or well. and identify the U.S. Ceolo
Survey (or other) map correspondinL
the location.
On each snap, include the map sc.ale,
a meridian arrow showing north and
-------
Federal Reaster / Vol . 60, No. 234 I Wedne’dnv, December 6. 1993 / Proposed Rules
62613
t ude and longitude at the nearest
ile second. On all maps of rivers.
.v the direction of the current, and
n tidal waters, show the directions of
iw bb and flow tides. Use a 7½ minute
.eries map published by the U.S.
i ological Survey, which may be
ibtained through the U.S. Geological
Survey Offices listed below. If a 7½
•ninute series map has not been
oublished for your facility, then you
:: ay use a 15 mInute series map from
the U.S. Geological Survey. If neither a
71/2 minute or 15 minute series map has
been published for your facility site, use
a plat map or other appropriate map,
including all the requested information;
n this case, briefly describe land uses
in the map area (e.g.. residential,
commercial).
Maps may be purchased at local
dealers (listed In your local yellow
Pages) or purchased over the counter at
the following USGS Earth Science
Information Centers (ESIC):
Anchorage-ESIC. 4230 UniversIty Dr., Rm.
101. Anchorage, AX 99506-4684.
(907)786—7011
Lakewnod-ESIC. Box 25048. Bldg. 25. Rm.
1813, Denver Federal Center. MS 504.
Denver. CO 80225—0046. (303)236—5829
akewood Open Files.ESIC. Box 25286. Bldg.
810, Denver Feoeral Center, Denver, CO
lo Park.ESIC, Bldg. 3. Rzn. 3128, MS 532,
S Middlofleld Rd., Menlo Park. CP
j4025—3591, (415)329-4309
Reston.ESIC. 507 National Center. Reston.
VA 22092. (703)648-4045
olla-ESIC, 1400 lndependcnce Rd.. MS 231.
Rolia. MO 65401—2602. (314)341—0851
5alt Lake City.ESIC. 2222 West 2300 South.
Salt Lake City, UT 84119. (801)975—3742
Sioux Falls-ESIC, EROS Data Canter, Sioux
Falls. SD 57198—0001, (605)594—6151
Spokane-ESIC. U.S. Post Office Bldg.. Rut.
135. 904 W. Riverside Ave.. Spokane. WA
99201—1088. (509)353—2524
Stennis Space Center.ESIC, Bldg. 3101.
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529. (601)686—
3541
Washington. D.C. .ESIC. U.S. Dept. of Interior.
1849 C St., NW. Rut. 2650, Washington.
D.C 20240, (202)208—4047
All maps should be either on paper or
other material appropriate for
reproduction. If possible, all sheets
should be approximately letter size with
margins suitable for filing and binding.
As few sheets as necessary should be
‘ised to clearly show what Is involved.
ach sheet should be labeled with your
‘acuity’s name, permit number, location
(city. county, or town), date of drawing,
and designation of the number of sheets
‘I each diagram as “page — of _.“
Process flow Diagram or Schematic
ovide a process flow diagram or
ematic that shows how wastewator
flows through your plant. On your
diagram, include all bypass piping.
“Bypass piping” is a system of pipes,
conduits, gates, and val’,es that can be
used to inrenth rtai divert wastewater
flow from any part ci your plant directly
to a discharge pciut. A bypass happens
before the wastewater has been fully
treated. Title you.- diagram “Schematic
Wastewater Flow,” An example of a
diagram or schematic is shown In Figure
A below. Also write a brief description
of your diagram.
In addition io the diagram, provide a
water balance that shows the following
Items:
• All treatment units. Treatment units
include all processes used to treat
wastewater, such as chlorination and
dechlorination units.
• The daily average flow rate (in mgd)
that has entered your plant and that has
been dicrharged front your plant over
the past 12 months.
• The daily average flow rate (In mgd)
between treatment units in your facility
for the past 12 months.
Figure A—Process Flow Diagram
If possible, submit diagrams that are
approximately letter size (8 ½x11
inches) and leave blank room at the
edges so the permitting authority can
file or bind the diagram(s) with your
application. Submit the fewest number
of diagrams that show the whole area.
Label all of your plant’s discharge
points with their outfall numbers. At the
top of each sheet, write your plant’s
name, NPDES permit number, location
(city, county, or town), the date you
made the diagram. and the number of
each diagram sheet as “page — of
“ (e.g., page 2 of 4),
10. Bypass
A “bypass” is the intentional
diversion of wastewater (e.g.. through an
arrangement of pipes, conduits, gates,
and/or valves) from any portion’of your
treatment plant to a discharge point
before that wastewater is fully treated.
Bypasses are prohibited unless the
criteria in 40 CFR 122.41(m) are
satisfied. For questions 10.a—10.c.,
provide Information on both wet
weather and dry weather bypasses if the
treatment plant has the ability to bypass
untreated or partially treated
wastewater.
a. Provide the number of bypass
incidents that occurred at your plant
during the past 12 months. Indicate
whether this Is an actual or apprdximate
number.
b. Provide the average number of
hours that each bypass lasted during the
past 12 months. Indicate whether this is
an actual or approximate number.
c. Provide the average volume (in
million gallons) of the bypasses over the
past 12 months. The average volume is
the total number of gallons that were
diverted from your plant divided by the
number of bypasses. Indicate whether
this is an actual or approxintain nuznbt.’r.
d. Describe why bypasses happen at
your plant.
e. Provide information regarding the
presence and use of backup generators
at your plant
11. Discharges and Other Disposal
Methods
a. Indicate whether your treatment
works discharges effluent to waters of
the United States. If the answer to 11.a.
is ‘No,” then go to ii.b.
List the number of each type of outfall
to waters of the United States your
treatment works has. If your plant has
outfalls (ither than bypass points) that
discharge something other than treated
sanitary effluent, give the total number
of these outfalls and describe what type
of effluent is discharged through them.
Note: If your eatment works discharges to
waters of the United State,, then you must
also complete the following sections of Form
2A:
• Questions 15-18;
• Refer to the Application Overview
section to determine whether you must also
complete the Effluent Testing Information in
Part A of the Supplemental Application
Information packet.
b. A surface impoundment with no
point source discharge (to waters of the
U.S.) Is a holding pond or basin that is
large enough to contain all wastewaters
discharged into it. It has no places
where water overflows from it. It is used
for evaporation of water and very little
water seeps Into the ground. Your plant
must report the location of each surface
impoundment, on average how much
water Is placed in the impoundment
each day, and how often water is
discharged into the surface
impoundment (continuous or
Intermittent). If your plant discharges to
more than one surface impoundment,
use an additional sheet (or sheets) to
give this information for each
impoundment. Attach the additional
sheet(s) to the application form. The
information on the location of the
surface impoundment may be
referenced on the topographic map
prepared under question 8.
C, Land application is the spraying or
spreading of treated wastewater over an
area of land, If your plant applies
wastewater to land, you must list the
she location, how many acres the site is,
how much water Is applied (as annual
average daily application), and how
often the wastewater Is applied to the
site (continuous or intermittent). If your
plant applies wastewater to more than
-------
62614 Federal R g er / Vol. 80, No. 234 / Wednesday. December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
one site. provide the Information for
each site on a separate sheet (or sheets).
Attach the additional sheet(s) to your
application form. The information on
the location of the surface
imponiiAm.nt may be referenced on the
topographic map prepared under
question 8.
d. If your plant discharges treated or
untreated wastewater to another
treatment works (incluuing a municipal
waste transport or collection system).
provide the information requested in
question i1.d. If your plant sends
wastewater to more than one treatment
works. provide this information for each
treatment works on an additional sheet
(or sheets). Attach the additional
sheet(s) to your application form.
DesCribe how the wastewater is
transported to the other treatment
works. Also provide the name and
mailing addxma of the company that
transports your plant’s wustewater to
this treatment works as well as the
name, phone number, and title of the
contact person ax the transportation
company.
Provide the name and mailing address
of each treatment works that receives
wastewater from your plant as well as
the name, phone number, and title of
the contact person at the treatment
works that receives your plant’s
wastewater. Also, provide the NPDES
number for the treatment works, if you
know it. Indicate the average daily flow,
in million gallons per day, that Is sent
from your plant to the other treatment
works.
e. Indicate whether your treatment
works discharges. or has the potential to
discharge, through combined sewer
overflows. If your response to this
question is “Yes.” then you must also
complete Part D of the Supplem rnisil
Application Information packet.
f. If your plant disposes of its
wastewater in some way that was not
described by 11.a.—11.e.. briefly describe
how your plant discharges or disposes
of its wastewater. Also give the annual
daily volumes disposed of this way and
Indicate whether the discharge is
continuous or Intermittent. Other ways
to discharge or dispose include
underground percolation and well
Injection.
12. Federal Tn,lI*n Reservation
Federal Indian Reservation means all
land within the limits of any Indian
reservation under the jurisdiction of the
United States Government
notwithstanding the issuance of any
patent. and including rights-of-way
running through the reservation.
Indicate whether your plant Is located
on (I.e.. within the limits of) a Federal
Indlen Reservation and whether the
water body into which your plant
discharges flows through a Federal
bd n Reservation attet it receives your
plant discharge. Uyou mark “Yes” for
either of these questions, describe
which parts of your plant ate located on
- a Federal Indian Reservation or indicate
how far upstream from a Federal Indian
Reservation your plant’s discharge is.
13. Operation/Maintenance Performed
by Contractor(s)
If a contractor carries out any
operational or maintenance aspects
associated with wastewater treatment or
effluent quality at this facility, provide
the name, m ii1ing address, and
telephone number of each such
tractor. Also provide a description of
the activities performed by the
contractor. Attach additional pages If
e c Ty .
14. Scheduled Improvements,
Schedules of ImplementatIon
Provide Information on any
improvements to your treatment works
that you are currently planning. Include
only those improvements that will affect
the wastewater treatment, effluent
quality, or design capacity of your
treatment works (such improvements
may include regionalizatlon of
treatment works). Also list the schedule
for when these improvements will be
started and finished. if your treatment
works has more than one improvement
planned. use a separate sheet of paper
to provide information for each one.
a. List each outfall numbor that is
covered by the mplenientation
schedule. The outfall numbers you use
must be the same as the ones provided
under question 15.
b. Indicate whether the planned
improvements or implementation
schedules are required by or planned
independently of any local, state, or
Federal a$encies.
c. Provide a brief description of the
Improvements to be made for the
outfalls listed in question 14.a.
d. If you are submitting Form 2A for
a renewal of an existing NPDES permit
and you plan to change your treatment
works’ influent design flow rate, then
provide the proposed new maximum
daily influent design flow rate in mgd.
e, Provide the information requested
for each planned improvement. Supply
dates for the following stages of any
compliance schedule. For
improvements that are planned
independently of local, State. or Federal
agencies, indicate planned or actual
completion dates. as applicable. If a step
has already been finished, give the date
when that sti p was completed.
• “Begin Construction” means the
date you plan to start construction.
• “End Construction” means the
you expect to Rn h construction.
• “Begin Discriarge” means the daw
that you expect a discharge will start.
• “AttaIn Operational Level” means
the date that you expect the effluent
level will meet your plant’s
implementation schedule conditions.
f. Note whether your treatment woric
has received appropriate permits or
clearances that are required by other
Federal or State requirements. If you
have received such permits, describe
Phem,
Notm If this treatment works discharges
treated ‘vastewater to waters of the United
States. g’i to question 15. If this treatment
works coos not discharge treated wastewater
to waters of the United States, do not
ctimplete question. is—ia. Instead, go to
question 19 (Certiflcatio Statement). (You
may also be requiree to complete portions of
the Supplemental Application Information
pack’t.l
Effluent Discharges
Answer questions 15—17 once for
each u ztfall through which your
treatment works discharges effluent to
surface waters of the United States. Do
not include information about combined
sower overflow discharge points.
Surface water means creeks, stream’
rivers, lakes. estuuries. and oceans.
your treatme.nt works has more than one
outfall, ropy and complete questions
15—17 once for each outfall.
15. DescrIption of Outfall
a. . Give the outfall number and its
location. For location, provide the city
or town (if app!icablel: ZIP code: the
county: the state: and the latitude and
longitude to the nearest second, If this
outfall is a subsurface discharge (e.g..
into an estuary. !ake. or ocean). indicate
how far the outfall is from shore and
how far bolow the water’s surface it is.
Measure the distances in feet. Give these
distancas at the lowest point of low tide.
Also provide the average daily flow rate
In million gallons per day.
f. Mark whether this outfall is a
periodic or intermittent discharge. A
“periodic discharge” is one that
happens regularly (for example.
monthly or seasonally), but is not
continuous all year. An “intermittent
discharge” is one that happens
sometimes, but not reguiariv. Discharges
from holding ponds, lagoons, etc.. may
be included as periodic or interminer.t.
Do not include discharges from bypass
points or combined sewer o erflows
your answer. Ghe the number of tin
per year a discnarge occurs from ilus
outfall. Also tell how long each
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 234 I Wednesday. December 6. 1995 I Proposed Rules
62615
1 jjscharge lasts and how much water is
discharged. in million gallons per day.
ct each month when discharge
ipens. If you do not have records of
act months in which such discharges
occurred, provide an estimate based on
the best available information.
g. Note whether the outfall is
.‘quipped with a diffuser. If so. provide
.i brief description of the type of diffuser
vised (e.g., high-rate).
6. Description of Receiving Waters
a. Indicate which type of water this
outfall discharges into—stream) river.
lake, estuary. ocean, or other (describe).
b. Give the names of the surface
waters to which this outfall discharges.
For example, “Control Ditch A, then
into Stream B. then into River C, and
finally into River D in River Basin E.”
c. Provide the name of the watershed/
river/stream system in which the
receiving water (identified in question
16.b.) is located. If known, also provide
the 14-digit watershed code assigned to
this watershed by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service.
d. Provide the name of the State
Management/River Basin into which
this outfall discharges. If known, also
provide the 8-digit hydrologic
cataloging unit code assigned by the
U,S. Geological Surve ’.
a. If the water body is a river or
stream, provide the acute and chronic
critical low flow in cubic feet per
second (cfs). If you are unsure of these
numbers, the U.S. Geological Survey
may be able to give them to you. Or you
may be able to get these numbers from
prior studies.
f. Give the total hardness of the
receiving stream at critical low flow, In
milligrams per liter of CaCO,, if
applicable.
17. Description of Treatment
a. Indicate the highest level of
treatment that your plant provides for
the discharge from this outfall.
b. Give the design removal rates, in
percent. for biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD,) or carbonaceous
biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD 5 ).
suspended solids (SS). phosphorus (P),
and nhtrpgen (N).
c. Describe the type of disinfection
your plant uses (for example,
chlorination. ozonation, ultraviolet. etc,)
and any seasonal variation that may
occur. If your plant uses chlorination,
indicate whether it also dechlorinates.
d. Note whether the facility has post
aeration.
Effluent Testing Data
18. Effluent Testing Information:
Conventional and Nonconventiozia l
Pollutants
All applicants that discharge effluent
to waters of the United States must
complete question 18. Refer to the
Application Overview section to
determine if you must also complete the
Effluent Testing Information in Part A of
the Supplemental Application
Information packet.
Do not include information about
combined sewer overflow discharge
points in question 18.
Refer to the following table to
determine which effluent testing
information questions you must
complete and to determine the number
of pollutant scans on which to base your
data.
Complete question 18 once for each
outfall through which effluent is
discharged to waters of the United
States. Indicate on each page the outfall
number (as assigned in questions 15—17)
for which the data are provided. Using
the blank rows provided on the form,
submit any data the facility may have
for pollutants not specifically listed in
question 18.
For specific instructions on
completing the pollutant tables in
question 18, refer to Appendix A of
these instructions.
Ce 4iflcation
19. Certification
Notr Before completing the Certification
statement, review the Application Overview
section on the cover page of Form 2A to make
sure that you have completed all applicable
ictions of Form ZA, including any parts of
e Supplemental Application Information
cet.
All permit applications must be
signed and certified. Also indicate in
the boxes provided which sections of
Form 2A you are submitting with this
application.
An application submitted by a
municipality. State, Federal, or other
public agency must be signed by either
a principal executive officer or ranking
elected official. A principal executive
officer of a Federal agency includes: (1)
The chief executive officer of the
agency, or (2) a senior executive officer
having responsibility for the overall
operations of a principal geographic
unit of the agency (e.g.. Regional
Administrators of EPA).
An application submitted by a
corporation must be signed by a
responsible corporate officer. A
responsible corporate officer means: (1)
A president, secretary. treasurer, or vice
president In charge of a principal
business function, or any other person
who performs similar policy- or
decision-making functions; or (2) the
manager of manufacturing, production.
or operating facilities employing more
than 250 persons or having gross annual
sales or expenditures exceeding $25
million (in second quarter 1980 dollars),
if authority to sign documents has been
assigned or delegated to the manager in
accordance with corporate procedures.
An application submitted by a
partnership or sole proprietorship must
be signed by a general partner or the
proprietor, respectively.
After completing the certification
statement (all applicable sections of
Form ZA must also be complete), submit
the application to:
Supplemental Application Information
Packet
EPA has developed Form 2A in a
modular format, consisting of two
packets: the Basic Application
Information packet and the
Supplemental Application Information
packet. At a minimum, all applicants
must complete the Basic Application
Information packet. As directed by the
Application Overview section on the
Minimise
Treatment wcd characteiistics
Form 2A requirements
Appenóx A)
3
3
sIQn flow rate less than 1 mgd. and . _,_.._
-. ot required to have (or does not have) a pretreatment program.
.Designflowrategreaterthanorequaltol mgd,or
Question 18
Question 18 aMPasl A of Supplemental
Application lnlomution Packet.
.Required to have a pretreatment program (or has ore in place), or.
.Otherwtse required by the permitting authority to provide the data.
-------
62616 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 I Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
cover page of the form. certain
applicants will also need to complete
one or more parts of the Supplemental
Application Information packet.
The Supplemental Application
Information packet is divided into the
following parts:
• Part A Expanded Effluent Testing
Data
• Part B Toxicity Testing Data
• Part C Industrial (Jser Discharges.
Pretreatment, and RCRA/CERCLA
Wastes
• Part D Combined Sewer Systems
Refer to the Application Overview
section to determine which part(s) of the
Supplemental Application Information
packet you must complete.
Part A Expanded Effluent Testing Data
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: The
public reporting and reairdkaeping burden
for this collection of information (Part A.
Expended Effluent Date) Is estimated to
average 5.7 hours p .r response. This estimate
includes the time needed to review
Instructions: develop. ncqulze. install, and
utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting. validating, sad
verifying Information. processing and
maintaining inlbrinatlon. and disclosing and
providing information: adjust the existing
way. to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to respond to a collection of
intonnatlon: search existing data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information. An Agency may not
conduct or sponsor. and a person is not
reouired to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently
valid 0MB control uwnber.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection
of information, including suggestions for
reducing the burden, to Chief. OPPE
Regulatory information Division. U.S.
Environmental Pruh 1lon Agency (2136),
M SL, SW.. Washington, DC 20460; and to
the Office of Information and Regulsto .
Affair.. Office of Management and Budg
725 17th St. NW.. Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the
0MB control number in any corraepcnde
Do not send th. completed application form
to these addresses.
Note: All applicants that discharge effluent.
to waters of the United States must complete
question 18 of the Basic Application
Information packet. Refer to the Applicatioa
Overview section to determine if you must
also complete the Effluent Testing
Information In Part A of the Supplemental
Application Information packet.
Refer to the following table to
determine which effluent testing
information questions you must
compLete and to determine the number
of pollutant scans on which to base your
data.
The following instructions apply only
to treatment works completing Pait A of
the Supplemental Application
Information packet. Note that the
permitting authority may require
additional testing on a case-by-case
basis.
Complete Part A once for each outfall
through which effluent is discharged to
waters of the United States. Indicate on
each page the outfall number (as
assigned in questions 15—17 of the Basic
Application Information packet) for
which the data are provided. Using the
blank rows provided on the form,
submitanydatathe facilitymay have
for pollutants not specifically listed In
Part A.
For specific instructions on
completing the pollutant tables in Part
A, refer to Appendix A of these
instrwtions.
Note: After completing Part A, refer to the
Application Overview section to determine
which other sections of Form ZA you must
complete. If you have completed all other
required sections of Form 2A. you may
proceed to the Certification Statement In
question 19 of the Basic Application
Information packet.
Part B. Toxicity Testing Data
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: The
public reporting and recordkeeping burden
for this collection of information (Part B:
Toxicity Testing Data) is estimated to average
4.5 hours per response. This estimate
Includes the time needed to review
instructions: develop, acquire. install, and
utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing
ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to respond ton collection of
information; search existing data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information. An Agency may not
conduct or sponsor. and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of
Information unless It displays a currently
valid 0MB control number.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection
of information, including suggestions for
reducing the burden, to Chief. OPPE
Regulatory Information Division. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2136), 401
M St., SW.. Washington. DC 20460; and to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affair.. Office of Management and Budget.
725 17th St.. N.W.. Washington. DC 20503.
Attention; Desk Officer for EPA. Include the
0MB control number in any correspondence.
Do not send the completed application form
to these addresses.
Treatment works meeting one or more
of the following criteria must submit the
results of whole effluent toxicity testing:
1. Treatment works with a design
lnlluent flow rate greater than or equal
to one mgd; or
2. Treatment works with an approved
pretreatment program (as well as those
required to have one): or
3. Treatment works otherwise
required by the permitting authority to
submit the results of whole effluent
toxicity testing.
Applicants completing Part B must
submit the results from any whole
effluent toxicity test conducted during
the past three years that have not been
reported or submitted to the permitting
authority for each outfall discharging
effluent to the waters of the United
States. Do not include information on
combined sewer overflows in this
section. If the applicant conducted a
whole effluent toxicity test during the
past three years that revealed toxicity.
then provide any information available
on the cause of the toxicity or any
results of a toxicity reduction
evaluation, if one was conducted.
Test results provided in Part B must
be based on multiple species being
Minimum
Treatment works cliaractetistice
Form 2A requirements
.
No. of
scans (see
appendix A)
• Des gn flow rate less than lmgd d .. ...._... ........,.... ......
• Not required to have (or does not have) a pretreatment program
• Desgnflategeuerlhanorequaltolmgd,or.. . . ............................. ,.._........,...
• Required to have a pretreatment program (or has one in place) or’
• Otherwieerequredbthepsdtingauthontytoprovidethethte
QuestIon 18
Question 18 end Past A of Supplemental
Application Information Packet
3
3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 I Wednesday. December 6. 1995 I Proposed Rules
62617
:&ed quarterly for a minimum of one
“at. For multiple species, EPA requues
ninimum of two species (e.g.,
crtebrateS and invertebrates). The
permitting authority may require the
, pplicant to include other species (e.g..
1 ,lants) as well. Applicants must provide
these tests for acute or chronic toxicity.
depending Ofl the range of the receiving
water dilution. EPA recommends that
.ipplicants conduct acute or chronic
toxicity testing based on the following
dilutions:
• Acute toxicity testing if the dilution
of the effluent is greater than 1000:1 at
the edge of the mixing zone.
• Acute or chronic toxicity testing If
the dilution of the effluent Is between
100:1 and 1000:1 at the edge of the
snbcing zone. Acute testing may be more
appropriate at the higher end of this
range (1000:1). and chronic testing may
be more appropriate at the lower end of
this range (100 1).
• Chronic toxicity testing if the
dilution of the effluent is less than 100:1
at the edge of the mixing zone.
All data provided In Part B must be
based on tests performed within three
years prior to completing this
application. The tests must have bean
onducted since the last NPDES permit
csuance or permit modification under
CFR 122.62(a). In addition.
2 ,plicants only need to submit data that
have not previously been submitted to
the permitting authority. Thus, if test
data have already been submitted
(within the last three years) in
accordance with an issued NPDES
permit, the treatment works may note
the dates the tests were submitted and
need not fill out the information
requested in question B.2. for that test.
Additional copies of Part B may be
used in submitting the required
information. A permittee having no
significant toxicity in the effluent over
the past year and who has submitted all
toxicity test results through the end of
the calendar quarter preceding the time
of permit application would need to
supply no additional data as toxicity
testing data as part of this application.
Instead, the applicant should complete
question 8.4., which requests a
summary of bioassay test infonnation
already submitted. (See below for more
detailed Instructions on completing
question 8.4.)
Where test data are requested to be
reported, the peatment works has the
‘ption of reporting the requested data
i Form 2A or on reports supplied by
ilaboratories conducting the testing.
ovided the data requested are
complete and presented in a logical
fashion. The permitting authority
reserves the right to request that the data
be reported on Form 2A.
B.l. Required Tests
a. Provide the total number of chronic
and acute whole effluent toxicity tests
conducted in the past three years. A
“chronic” toxicity test continues for a
relatively long period of time, often one-
tenth the life span of the organism or
more. An “acute” toxicity test is one in
which the effect is observed in 96 hours
or less.
B.2. Individual Test Pats
Complete 8.2. for each test conducted
in the last three years for which data has
not been submitted. Use the columns
provided on the form for each test and
specify the test number at the top of
each column. Use additional copies of
question 8.2. If more than three tests are
being reported. The parameters listed on
the form are based on EPA.
recommended test methods. Perinittees
may be required by the permitting
authority to submit additional test
parameter data for the purposes of
quality assurance.
U the treatment works Is conducting
whole effluent toxicity tests and
reporting Its results in accordance with
an NPDES permit requirement, then the
treatment works may note the dates the
tests were submitted and need not fill
out the information requested in
question B.2. for those tests (unless
otherwise required by the permitting
authority).
a. Provide the information requested
on the form for each test reported.
Under “Test species,” provide the
scientific name of the organism used in
the test. The “Outfall number” reported
must correlate to the outfall numbers
listed in questions 15—17 of the Basic
Application Information packet.
b. Provide the source of the toxicity
test methods followed. In conducting
the tests, the treatment works must use
methods approved in accordance with
40 CPR Part 136 (Note: Approved
methods are currently under
development).
c. Indicate whether 24-hour
composite or grab samples were used for
each test. For multiple grab samples,
provide the number of grab samples
used. Refer to Appendix A of the
Instructions for a definition of
composite and grab samples.
d. Indicate whether the sample was
taken before or after disinfection and/or
after dechlorination.
e. Provide a description of the point
In the treatment process at which the
sample was collected.
f. Indicate whether the test was
intended to assess chronic or acute
toxicity.
g. Indicate which type of test was
performed. A “static” test is a test
performed with a single constant
volume of water. In a “static.renewal”
test, the volume of water is renewed at
discrete intervals. In a “flow-through”
test, the volume of water is renewed
continuously.
h. Indicate whether laboratory water
or the receiving water of the tested
outfall was used as the source of
dilution water. If laboratory water was
used, provide the type of water used.
I. Indicate whether fresh or salt water
was used as the dilution water. For salt
water, specify whether the salt water
was natural or artificial (specify the type
of artificial water used).
j. For each concentration in the test
series, provide the percentage of effluent
used.
k. Provide the miniynum and
maximum parameters measured during
the test for pH, salinity, temperature,
ammonia, and dissolved oxygen.
I Provide the results of each test
performed. For acute toxicity tests,
provide the percent survival of the test
species in 100 percent effluent. Also
provide the LC 50 (Lethal Concentration
to 50 percent) of the test. “LCso” is the
effluent (or toxicant) concentration
estimated to be lethal to 50 percent of
the test organisms during a specific
period. Indicate any other test results in
the space provided.
For chronic toxicity tests, provide
data at the most sensitive endpoint.
While this is generally expressed as a
“NOEC” (No Observed Effect
Concentration), It may be expressed as
an “Inhibition Concentration” (e.g.,
“ICss”—Inhibitlon Concentration to 25
percent). The NOEC Is the highest
measured concentration of an effluent
(or a toxicant) at which no significant
adverse effects are observed on the test
organisms at a specific time of
observation. The IC Is the effluent (or
toxicant) concentration estimated to
cause a 25 percent reduction in
reproduction, fecundity, growth, or
other non-quantal biological
measurements. Indicate any other test
results in the space provided.
m. Provide the mortality (In percent)
of the control group. Indicate any other
relevant information about the control
group In the space provided.
8.3. Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
A Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
(TRE) is a site-specific study conducted
in a stepwise process designed to
identify the causative agents of effluent
toxicity, evaluate the effectiveness of
-------
62818 Federal Register / Vol. 60. Nc. 234 / Wednesday. December 6. 1995 / Pronosed Rules
to acity control options, and then
confirm the reduction in effluent
to acity. If the treatment works Is
conducting aTRE as part of a NPDES
permit requirement or enforcement
order, then you only need to provide the
date of the last progress report
concerning the TRE in the area reserved
for details of the TRE.
B.4. Summary of Submitted
Blomonitoring Test Information
As stated above, applicants that have
already submztted the results of
biomonitonng test Information over the
past three years do not need to resubmit
this data with Form ZA. Instead,
indicate in question B. .. the date you
submitted each report and provide a
summary of the test results for each
report. Include in this summary the
following information: the outfall
number and collection dates of the
samples tested, dates of testing. toxicity
testing method(s) used, and a summery
of the results from the teat (e.g. 100%
survival in 40% effluent).
Note After completing Part B. refer to the
Application Overview section to determine
which other sections of Form ZA yen must
complete. If you have completed ill other
required sections of Form ZA, wa may
r 1ed to the Certification Statement La
question 19 of the Basic Application
information —
Part C. Industrial User Discharges,
Pretreatment, and RCR.MIRQ.A
Wastes
Papezwork Reduction Act Notice: The
public reporting and recordkeeplng burden
for this collection of lthrmetlon (Part C.
Industrial User Discharges. Pretreatment, end
R JCIRCIA Wastes) Is estimated to
average 4.3 hours per response. This estimate
Include, the time needed to review
Instructions: develop, acquire. InstalL and
utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of colle’tlng. validating. and
verifying Information. processing and
. ..irnrn,,g Information. and and
providing Information: ad$usr the existing
ways to ply with any previously
applicable Instructions and requirements;
train personnel to gor ,ord to a collection of
Information; search existing data sources;
complete and review the collection of
Information: and tr•” ” t ’ or otherwise
di,d s , the Information. An Agency may not
conduct eq sponsor. and a person Is not
required to respond to a collection of
Information unless It displays a cwrently
valid 0MB control number.
Send comment. regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection
of information. including suggestions for
reducing the burden, to Chief. OPPE
Regulatory information Division. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (21361.401
M St.. S.W.. Washington. DC 20460: and to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget.
72$ 12”th St.. NW.. Washington, DC 20503.
Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the
OMB.omtrul u ub,r in any currespundence.
oni send the completed application form
ta them iiddresem
All treatment works receiving
c k r s freni significant industrial
uce& Vs) or facilities that receive
RCRA orWQ.A wastes must complete
Part C.
A” iii - J industrial user” is an
ind isl u that is subject to
Cstcgorical P . reatment Standards
ua 40 QR 403.6 and 40 CFR Chapter
1. Snhrthapter N. which are technology-
b cI standards developed by EPA
setting ndn iy.spedfic effluent limits.
(A Eat of Industrial Categories subject to
C h iiim1 Pretreatment Standards is
in.4orfed in Appendix B.)
A slgniflcant industrial user” Is
defined in 40 R 403.3(t) as an
indimmial user that
(l Is subject to Categorical
Protreatment Standards under 40 CFR
403.6 and 40 R Chapter!. Subchapter
N; and
(2) any other industrial user that:
discharges an average of 25,000 gallons
per day or more of process wastewater
to the treatment works (excluding
annfP tiy . non-contact cooling and boiler
blowdown wastewater); contributes a
process wastestream that makes up 5
percent or more of the average dry
weather hydraulic or organic capacity of
the treatment works; or is designated as
such by the Control Authority as
defined in 40 CFR 403.12(a) on the basis
that the industrial user has a reasonable
potential for adversely affecting the
treatment works operation or for
violating any pretreatment standard or
requirement (In accordance with 40 CFR
403.8(f)(6)).
An ‘industrial user” means any
industrial or commercial entity that
dI.ieh rges wastewater that is not
domestic wastewater. Domestic
wastewater Includes wastewater from
connections to houses, hotels, non-
Industrial office buildings. institutions,
or sanitary waste from industrial
facilities. The number of “Industrial
users” is the total number of industrial
and commercial users that tllet .hnrge to
the treatment works.
For the purposes of completing the
application form, please provide
information on non-categorical SIUs and
categorical industrial users separately.
General Information
Cl. Number of Industrial Users
Provide the number of SIUs and the
number of categorical industrial users
only that discharge to your treatment
works.
C.2. Average Daily Flow From Industrial
Users
Provide an estimate of the daily fi.
of wastewater, In mgd, received from nil
industrial users, significant Industrial
users only, and categorical industrial
users only.
C.3. Industrial User Contributions
Estimate the contribution (in terms of
the percent of total daily inS luent) from
all industrial users, significant
industrial users only, categorical
industrial users only, and domestic
sources only.
C.4. Pretreatment Program
Indicate whether the treatment works
has an approved pretreatment program.
An “approved pretreatment program” is
a program administered by a treatment
works that meets the criteria established
in 40 CFR 403.8 and 403.9 and that has
been approved by a Regional
Admlnictrator or State Director. If the
answer to question C.4. is no, go to C.5.
Naote If this treatment works has or is
required to have a preneatinent program, you
must also complete Parts A and B of the
Supplemental Application Information
U the treatment works has an -
approved pretreatment program.
Identify any substantial modification.
the POTW’e approved pretreatment
program that have not been approved in
accordance with 40 CFR 403.18.
Significant Industrial User (SW)
Information
All treatment works that receive
discharges from SIUs must complete
questions C5.-C,10.
If your treatment works receives
wastewater from more than one SRI,
complete questions C.5.—C.10. once for
each SW.
C.5. SIgnificant Industrial User
Information
Provide the name and orniling address
of each SIU. Submit additional pages as
necessary.
CO. Industrial Processes
Describe the actual process(es) (rather
than simply iisting them) at the SRI that
affect or contribute to the SIU’s
discharge. For example. in describing a
metal finishing operation, include such
information as how the product is
cleaned prior to finishing, what type of
plating baths are in operation (e.g..
nickel. chromium). how paint is
applied, and how the product is
polished. Attach additional sheets if
necessary.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 I Wednesday. December 6. 1995 I Proposed Rules
62619
C.7. Principal Product(s) and Raw
Material(s)
List principal products that the SIU
generates and the raw materials used to
manufacture the products.
C.8. Flow Rate
“Process wastewater” means any
water that, during manufacturing or
processing. comes into direct contact
with or results from the production or
use of any raw material. Intermediate
product, finished product, byproduct, or
waste product. Indicate the average
daily volume, in gallons per day. of
process wastewater and non-process
wastewater that the SIU discharges into
the collection system. Specify whether
the discharges are continuous or non-
continuous.
C.9. Pretreatment Standards
Indicate whether the SIU Is subject to
local limits nd categorical pretreatment
standards. “Local limits” are
enforceable local requirements
developed by treatment works to
address Federal standards as well as’
state and local regulations.
“Categorical pretreatment standards”
are national technology-based standards
developed by EPA. setting industry-
specific effluent limits. These standards
are implemented by 40 CFR 403.8.
C.10. Problems at the Treatment Works
Attributed to Waste Discharged by the
sIt.,
Provide information concerning any
problems the treatment works has
experienced that ale attributable to
discharges from the SIUs. Problems may
include upsets or interference at the
plant. corrosion in the collection
system, or other similar events.
RCRA Hazardous Waste Received by
Truck, Rail or Dedicated Pipeline
C.11. RCRA Waste
As defined in Section 1004(5) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). “Hazardous waste” means
“a solid waste, or combination of solid
wastes, which because of its quantity,
concentration, or physical, chemical or
infectious characteristics may:
(A) cause or significantly contribute to
an jncrease in mortality or an increase
in serious Irreversible, or incapacitating
reversible, illness; or
(B) pose a substantial present or
potential hazard to human health or the
environment when Improperly treated,
stored, transported, or disposed of, or
otherwise managed.”
Those solid wastes that are
considered hazardous are listed under
+0 CFR Part 26 . ‘rreatmout works thnt
accept hazardous wastes by truck, rail,
or dedicated pipeline (a pipeline that is
used to carry hazardous waste directly
to a treatment works without prior
müdng with domestic sewage) within
the property boundary of the treatment
works are considered to be hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities (TSDFs) and, as such, are
subject to regulations under RCRA.
Under RCRA, mixtures of domestic
sewage and other wastes that
commingle in the treatment works
collection system prior to reaching the
property boundary, including those
wastes that otherwise would be
considered hazardous, are excluded
from regulation under the domestic
sewage exclusion. Hazardous wastes
that ais delivered directly to the
treatment works by truck, rail, or
dedicated pipeline do not fall within the
exclusion. Hazardous wastes received
by these routes may only be actepted by
treatment works if the treatment works
complies with applicable RCRA
requirements for TSDFs.
Applicants completing questions
C.11.-C.13. should have indicated all
points at which RCRA hazardous waste
enters the treatment works by truck, rail.
or dedicated pipe in the map provided
In question 8 of the Basic Application
Information packet.
C.12. Waste Tran port
Indicate the method by which RCRA
waste is received at the treatment works.
Ci3. Waste Description
Provide the EPA hazardous waste
numbers, which are located in 40 CFR
Part 261, Subparts C & D. and the
amount (in volume or mass) received.
CERCL4 (Superfund) Wastewater and
RCM Remediation/Corrective Action
Wastewater
Substances that are regulated under
Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) are described and listed
in 40 CFR Part 302. Questions C.14.—
C.22. apply to the type, origin, and
treatment of CERCLA wastes currently
(or expected to be) discharged tc thc
treatment works.
C.14. C CLA Waste
Indicate whether this treatment works
currently receives waste from a CERCLA
(Superfund) site or plans to accept
waste from a CERCLA site in the next
five years. If it does, provide the
Information requested in C.15—C.17.
If the treatment works receives, or
plans to receive, CERCLA waste from
more than one site, complete questions
C.15—C.17, once for ea h s&Ie.
C .15. Waste Origin
Provide information about the
CERCLA site that is discharging waste to
the treatment works. Information must
include a description of the type of
facility and an EPA identification
number if one esists.
C.16. Pollutants
Provide a list of the pollutants that are
or will be discharged by the CERCLA
site and the volume and concentration
of such pollutants.
C.17. Waste Treatment
Provide information concerning the
treatment used (If any) by the CERCLA
site to treat the waste prior to
discharging it to the treatment works.
The information should Include a
description of the treatment technology,
Information on the frequency of the
discharge (continuous or intermittent)
and any data concerning removal
efficiency.
C.18. RCRA Corrective Action Waste
Indicate whether this treatment works
currently receives RCRA Corrective
Action Waste or plans to accept RCRA
Corrective Action Waste In the next five
years. If it does, provide the information
requested in C.19.—C.21.
If there is more than one site from
which RCRA Corrective Action Waste
Is. or Is expected to be, received, attach
additional sheets with the Information
requested in questions C.19.—C.21. for
each site.
C.19. Waste Origin
Provide a description of the site and
of the type of facility that discharges or
is expected to discharge the RCRA
corrective action waste.
C .20. Pollutants
Provide a list of the pollutants that are
or will be discharged by each RCRA
corrective action site.
C.21. Waste Treatment
Provide information concerning the
treatment used (if any) by the RCRA
corrective action site to treat the waste
prior to discharging t to the treatment
works. The information should include
a description of the treatment
technology, any data concerning
removal efficiency, and Information on
the frequency of the discharge
(continuous or intermittent). If the
discharge is intermittent, describe the
tltcr.h*ip schedule.
C.22. Other Wastes From Remediationl
Clean-up Sites
Describe any wastewater received or
expected to be received from leaking
-------
62820 Federal_Ragister/ VoL 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6 . 1995 I Proposed Rules
underground tank remedlatlon sites and
from remedlatlon/cleanup sites that are
regulated by other laws (state,
municipal, etc.).
Notse After completing Part C. refer to the
Application Over,lew section to determine
which other sections of Form 2A you must
complete. If you have completed all other
required sections of Form 2A. you may
proceed to the Certification Statement In
question 19 of the Basic Application
Information packet
Pail D. Combined Sewer Systems
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: The
public reporting and recordkeeping burden
for this collection of information (Part D:
Combined Sewer Systems) is estimated to
average 8.2 hour, per response. This estimate
includes the time needed to review
instructions: develop, acquire. install, and
utilins technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting. validating, and
verifying information, processing and
maintaining Information, and disclosing and
providing informatloiu adjust the existing
way. to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements:
train personnel to respond tea collection of
information; search existing data sources;
complete and review the collection of
Information: and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information. An Agency may not
conduct or sponsor. and a person Is not
required to respond to a collection of
Information unless it displays a currently
valid 0MB control number.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of thi, collection
of Information. including suggestions for
reducing the burden, to ChIeL OPPE
Regulatory tafonnation Division. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2138). 401
M St.. S.W.. Washington, DC 20400: and to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs. Office of Management and Budget.
725 17th St.. N.W.. Washington. DC 20503.
Attention: Desk omcer for EPA. Include the
0MB control number In any correspondence.
Do not send the completed application form
to these addresses.
D.1. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
Discharge Points
A combined sewer system collects a
mixture of both sanitary wastewater and
storm water runoff.
Indicate the number of CSO discharge
points in the combined sewer system
covered by this application. Complete
questions D.5.—D.9. once for each
discharge point. Attach additional pages
as necessary.
D.2. System Map
Indicate on a system map all CSO
discharge points. For each such point.
indicate any sensitive use areas and any
supporting threatened or
endangered species that are potentially
affected by CSOs. Sensitive use areas
include beaches, drinking water
supplies, shellfish beds, sensitive
aquatic ecosystems, and outstanding
natural resource waters.
Applicants may provide the
Information requested In question D.2.
on the map submitted In response to
questIon 8 In the Basic Application
Information packet
All maps Should be either on paper or
other material appropriate for
reproduction. If possible, all sheets
should be approximately letter size with
margins suitable for filing and binding.
As few sheets should be used as
necessary to Show clearly what is
involved. All discharge points should be
identified by outfall number. Each sheet
should be labeled with the applicant’s
name, NPDES permit number, location
(city, county, or town), date of drawing,
and designation of the number of sheets
of each diagram as “page ______ of
D.3. System Diagram
Diagram the location of combined and
separate sanitary major sewer trunk
lines and indicate any connections
where separate sanitary sewers feed into
the combined sewer system. Clearly
indicate the location of all flow
controlling devices in the system.
Include storage equipment. flow
regulating devices, and pump stations.
Also indicate the areas of drainage
associated with each CSO and the
pumping capacity of each pump station.
The drawing should be either on
paper or other material appropriate for
reproduction. If possible, all sheets
should be approximately letter size with
margins suitable for filing and binding.
As few sheets should be used as
necessary to show clearly what is
involved. All discharge points should be
identified by outfall number. Each sheet
should be labeled with the applicant’s
name, NPDES permit number, location
(city, county, or town), date of drawing.
and designation of the number of sheets
of each diagram as “page _______ of
D.4. System Evaluation
List any studies that have been
performed on the combined sewer
system since the last permit application.
Including inflow/infiltration studies,
engineering studies, hydraulic studies,
and water quality studies.
CSO Outf ails
Fill out a copy of questions D.5.—D.9.
once for each CSO discharge point.
Attach additional pages as necessary.
D.5. Description of Outfall
a.—d. Provide the outfall number and
location (Including city or town if
applicable, state, county, and latitude
and longitude to the nearest second).
For subsurface discharges (e.g..
discharges to lakes, estuaries, and
oceans) , provide the distance (in feet’
the discharge point from the shore an..
the depth (in feet) of the discharge point
below the surface of the discharge point.
Provide these distances at the lowest
point of low tide.
D.6. Monitoring
Indicate whether rainfall, CSO flow
volume, CSO water quality, and/or
receiving water quality were monitored
during the past 12 months. Provide the
number of storm events monitored
during the past 12 months as well.
D.7. CSO Incidents
a. Provide the number of CSO
incidents that have occurred in the past
12 months. Indicate whether this is an
actual or approximate number.
b. Provide the average duration (in
hours) per CSO event Indicate whether
this is an actual or approximate value.
c. Provide the average volume (in
million gallons) of discharge per CSO
incidents over the past 12 months.
Indicate whether this is an actual or
approximate number.
d. Provide the minimum amount of
t infell that caused a CSO incident in
the past 12 months.
D.8. Description of Receiving Waters
a. Indicate the type of water body in 1 ..
which the CSO outfall (identified in
D.5.a.) discharges.
b. List the name(s) of immediate
receiving waters starting at the CSO
discharge point and moving
downstream. For example. “Control
Ditch A, thence to Stream B, thence to
River C. and thence to River D in the
River Basin E.”
c. Provide the name of the watershed!
river/stream system in which the
receiving water (identified in question
D.8.b.) Is located. If known, also provide
the 14.dliglt watershed code assigned to
this watershed by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service.
d. Provide the name of the State
Management/River Basin into which
this outfall discharges. If known, also
provide the 8-digit hydrologic
cataloging unit code assigned by the
U.S. Geological Survey.
D.9. CSO Operations
a. Indicate whether wastewater frnin
significant industrial users (refer to the
instructions to Part C for a definition)
can enter the combined sewer system.
b. Provide a description of any known
water quality impacts on the receivir
water caused by CSO from this
discharge point.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday. December 6. 1995 / Proposed Rules
62621
Note After completing Part D. refer to the
Application Overview section to determine
which other sections of Form 2A you must
complete. If you have completed all other
req%nred sections of Form IA. you may
proceed to the Certification Statement in
question 19 of the Basic Application
Information packet.
Appendix A—Guidance for Completing
the Effluent Testing Information
All Treatment Works
All applicants must provide data for
each of the pollutants in questIon 16 of
the Basic Application Information
packet. Some applicants must also
provide data for the pollutants in Part A
of the Supplemental Application
Information packet. All applicants
submitting effluent testing data must
base this data on a T, iTilmum of three
pollutant scans. All samples analyzed
must be representative of the discharge
from the sampled outfall.
If you have existing data that fulfills
the requirements described below, you
may use that data in lieu of conducting
additional sampling. U you measure
more than the required number of daily
values for a pollutant and those values
are representative of your wastestream,
you must include them In the data you
report. In addition, use the blank rows
provided on the form to provide any
existing sampling data that your facility
may have for pollutants not listed In the
appropriate sections. AU data provided
in the application must be based on
samples taken within three years prior
to the time of this permit application.
Sampling data must be representative
of the treatment works’ discharge and
- take into consideration seasonal
variations. At least two of the samples
used to complete the effluent testing
information questions must have been
taken no fewer than 4 months and no
more than 8 months apart. For example.
one sample may be taken in April and
another in October to meet this
requirement. Applicants unable to meet
this time requirement due to periodic.
discontinuous, or seasonal discharges
can obtain alternative guidance on this
requirement from their permitting
authority.
The collection of samples for the
reported analyses should be supervised
by a person experienced in performing
wastewater sampling. Specific
requirements contained in the
applicable analytical methods should be
followed for sample containers, sample
preservation, holding times, and
collection of duplicate samples.
Samples should be taken at a time
representative of normal operation. To
the extent feasible, all processes that
contribute to wastewater should be in
operation and the treatment system
should be operating properly with no
system upsets. Samples should be
collected from the center of the flow
channel (where turbulence is at a
maximum), at a location specified in the
current NPDES permit. or at any
location adequate for the collection of a
representative sample.
A minimum of four grab samples
must be collected for pH. temperature.
cyanide, total phenols. residual
chlorine, oil and grease, fecal coliforin,
E. coli, and enterococd (applicants need
only provide data on either fecal
coliform or E. cell and entarococci). For
all other pollutants, 24-hour composite
samples must be collected. However, a
minimum of one grab sample. Instead of
a 24-hour composite. may be taken for
effluent from holding ponds or other
Impoundments that have a retention
period greater than 24 hours.
Grab and composite samples are
defined as follows:
• Grab sample: an lndIv dual sample
of at least 100 milliliters collected
randomly for a period not exceeding 15
minutes.
• Composite sample: a sample
derived from two or more discrete
samples collected at equal time Intervals
or collected proportional to the flow rate
over the compositing period. The
composite collection method may vary
depending on pollutant characteristics
or discharge flow characteristics.
The permitting authority may allow or
establish appropriate site-specific
sampling procedures or requirements,
Including sampling locations, the
season In which sampling takes place.
the duration between sampling events,
and protocols for collecting samples
under 40 CFR Part 136. Contact EPA or
the State permitting authority for
detailed guidance on sampling
techniques and for answers to specific
questions. The following instructions
explain how to complete each of the
columns In the pollutant.tables in the
effluent testing information sections of
Form 2A.
Maximum Daily Discharge. For
composite samples, the daily discharge
Is the average pollutant concentration
and total mass found in a composite
sample taken over a 24-hour period. For
grab samples, the daily discharge is the
arithmetic or flow-weighted total mass
or average pollutant concentration
found in a series of at least four grab
samples taken during the operating
hours of the treatment works during a
24-hour period.
To determine the masdmuni daily
discharge values, compare the daily
discharge values from each of the
sample events. Report the highest total
mass and highest concentration level
from these samples.
• “Concentration” is the amount of
pollutant that is present In a sample
with respect to the size of the sample.
The daily discharge concentration is the
average concentration of the pollutant
throughout the 24.hour period.
• “Mass” is calculated as the total
mass of the pollutant discharged over
the 24-hour period.
• All data must be reported as both
concentration and mass (where
appropriate). Use the following
abbreviations in the columns headed
“Units.”
Parts per million.
Gallons per day.
Million gallons per day.
Standard units.
Milligrams per liter.
Parts per billion.
Micrograms per liter.
Pounds.
Tons (English tons).
Milligrams.
Grams.
Kilograms.
Tonnes (metric tons).
Average Daily Discharge. The average
daily discharge is determined by
calculating the arithmetic mean daily
pollutant concentration and the
arithmetic mean daily total mass of the
pollutant from each of the sample
events within the three years prior to
this permit application. Report the
concentration, mass, and units used
under the Average Daily Discharge
column, along with the number of
samples on which the average is based.
Use the unit abbreviations shown above
in “Maximum Daily Discharge.”
If data requested in Form 2A have
been reported on the treatment works’
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs),
you may compile such data and report
It under the maximum daily discharge
and the average daily discharge columns
of the form.
Analytical Method. All Information
reported must be based on data
collected through analyses conducted
using 40 CFR Part 136 methods.
Applicants should use methods that
enable pollutants to be detected at levels
adequate to meet water quality-based
standards. Where no approved metLv d
can detect a pollutant at the water
quality-based standards level, the most
sensitive approved method should be
used. If the applicant believes that an
alternative method should be used (e.g..
due to matrix interference), the
applicant should obtain prior approval
from the permitting authority. U an
alternative method Is specified in the
e dst1ng permit. the applicant should
ppm
gpd
mgd
su
mg /I
ppb
ug/l
lbs
ton
mg
8
kg
T
-------
62622 Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 / Wednesday. December 6. 1995 I Proposed Rules
use that method unless otherwise
directed by the permitting authority.
Where no approved analytical method
exists, an applicant may use a suitable
method but must provide a description
of the method. For the purposes of the
application. “suitable method” means a
method that is sufficiently sensitive to
measure as close to the water quality-
based standard as possible.
Indicate the method used for each
pollutant in the “Analytical Method”
column of the pollutant tables. If a
method has not been approved for a
pollutant for which you are providing
data, you may use a suitable method to
measure the concentration of the
pollutant in the discharge. and provide
a detailed description of the method
used or a reference to the published
method. The description must include
the sample holding time, preservation
techniques, and the quality control
measures used. In such cases, indicate
the method used and attach to the
application a narrative description of
the method used.
Reporting Levels. The applicant
should provide the method detection
limit (MDL), minfrnum level (ML). or
other designated method endpoint
reflecting the precision of the analytical
method used.
All analytical results must be reported
using the actual numeric values
determined by the analysis. In other
words, even where analytical results are
below the detection or quantitatlon level
of the method used, the actual data
should be reported. rather than
reporting “noi.detect” (“ND”) or “zero”
(“0”). Because the endpoint of the
method has also been reported along
with the test results, the permitting
authority will be able to determine ii the
data are in the “nondetect” or “below
quantitation” range.
For any dilutions made and any
problems encountered in the analysis,
the applicant should attach an
explanation and any supporting
documentation with the application. For
GC/MS, report all results found to be
present by spectral confirmation (I.e..
quantitation limits or detection limits
should not be used as a reporting
threshold for CC/MS)
Total Recoverable Metals. Total
recoverable metals are measured from
unfiltered samples using EPA methods
specified in 40 CFR Part 136.3. A
digestion procedure is used to solubilize
suspended materials and destroy
possible organic metal complexes. The
method measures dissolved metals plus
those metals recovered from suspended
particles by the method digestion.
Appendix B Industrial Categories
Subject to National Categorical
Pretreatment Standards
lndustrioi Categories With Pretreatment
Standards in Effect
Aluminum Forming
Asbestos Manufacturing
Battery Manufacturing
Builder’s Paper and Board Mills
Carbon Black Manufacturing
Coil Coating
Copper Forming
Electrical and Electronic Components
Electroplating
Feed lots
Ferroalloy Manufacturing
Fertilizer Manufacturing
Glass Manufacturing
Grain Mills Manufacturing
Ink Formulating
Inorganic Chemicals
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Leather Tanning and Finishing
Metal Finishing
Metal Molding and Casting
Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal
Powders
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
Organic Chemicals, Plastics and
Synthetic Fibers
Paint Formulating
Paving and Roofing
Pesticide Manufacturing
Petroleum Refining
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Porcelain Enameling
Pulp. Paper and Paperboard
Rubber Manufacturing
Soap and Detergents Manufacturing
Steam Electric Power Generating
Sugar Processing
Timber Products Manufacturing
Industrial Categories With Effluent
Guidelines Currently Under
Development (Proposed and Final
Action Dates)
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard (12117/93—
TBD)
Pesticide Formulating, Packaging. and
Repackaging (4/14/94—8/95)
Centralized Waste Treatment (12/15/94—
9/96)
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing (2/95-8/
98)
Metal Products and Machinery, Phase
(3/95—9/96)
Industrial Laundries (12/98-12/98)
Transportation Equipment Cleaning (12/
96—12/98)
Landfills and Incinerators (3/97—3/99)
Metal Products and Machinery. Phase II
(12/97—12/99)
uue coes
-------
- I l
a
a.
a
•1
a.
a
•1
S
h i
‘3
a
S
C-
L b
‘ I )
C-
C )
a
S
n
L b
8
a-
L b
• 1
I-
I0
C o
C i ’
•0
.3
0
C a
S
C-
C
Lb
Ca
a)
14
EPA Earn 3510.2$ (Rev 9-95) 0 )
‘a
-------
A UTY NAME: I 1 NPOES PERMIT NUMBER:
- PART 1: LIMITED BACKGROUND INFORMATION
I. V.dUIy lemwaa11on
a Fealuty n_n.
b M aing a .ss
c Contact person
Tde
Phone iiianber
d F.clilys eu
(notPO Dc i)
• kdcela Iii typo c i taa ly.
— P owtwd P esSu srut work. (P01W)
— Privawly owned Psale iwO woilis
— Federaly owned Peatment wadus
— BlendrIg or Peatnwnt operation
• — sIto 4 J3ioutio -
N( i OR O
2. Appticint toloseralen. 11*0 opØcant ic fler.nt Pose 11* sbovs. prob4lb *0 tolowbIg:
a. Apphosit n_ne
b Mal igedrksss
o Contact person
I
This p.fl should be .opplsPsd nJy b tod.nnty1 bcIllIen—u st I , I.eilths list do not ur,enUy !I 5vO, snd s i n p pt now spptylna oi en NPI) $ psimit Io editesi lI elii.a. ti
S suitsi. bod! pt ws TtllP p.r etsi dens not pertaIn to Ipo lUi ls . Uss .ro q as,tlnØ ç list ore ,eqWsi to h.v s1 orupadDo poIl,4ans r i t psk p.nnt(, .
• •:• • • - •• • S • .5 •f 5 1- • •
Fo wpow.ol iii form. em’ leI.mW thisppIInenL Thh tooIUf end ! ypw f.ciUIY tel. In the taclNt lot whInho ppca1Ión Woimpuan s Stlbpt$Ita : -
Form A
I0 5 M
2. AppicinI Inloruwatlon. (contd).
ill.
Phone number
tndcaM 114 %er conespondence regasdn
taatty or
d Is lii oppilcant the owner c i operator (or both) ci this lad ty1
_cperstor 4 4 other (desa*0)______
i permit shocid be descted to Ii.
V
‘C
id. ProvIde *0 total du 7 mt tens per isto.* 36$-dey period .1
sewage i I e h n 11ed under the tallowing practices:
-—
a. Amount generatad at *0 tacitly: ___________
b Amount receuved Porn oil site: ____________
c. Amount Pealed ci blended on all.: _____________
wa _____
a __
g. Asnountptscodonaswtsc.6spoaaIslto: __________
Ii Amount trod In a sewage skidge Incinerator: __________
I. Amount sent tea municipal solid waste Iandiul: _____________
J. Amount used ci deposed by another pracec. :
Describe:
EPA Form 35 10-2S (Rev 9-95)
PA ’ 5 - I 0F3
-------
FACUTY NAME:
NPDES PERMIT NUMBER:
I IEPA ID NUMBER:
I I(broffiddunonfr)
. - Form 4prorad
0MB Number
I Annvovat Etm,n i l-Yr-Yr
4 Pollutant Conosnksdons. Using tie 1s below as separaw stisdiment, provide
•sIstv data on tic pollutant oonc.nflsons in song. flidgs from live lacdity
Provide up in tree data points taken at least o tis month apsi deing tie sat too
years I I data from tie last two years n unavsdsbls, provide tie most roowli data
PØUA1I’ANT
pAR N GI8T$Y
NUMBER
C ar W471a7D4
(fqflQ jq :
- SAMPLç
L ’
ANALYTICAL
METHOD
2 : ¶
,? MINIMUM . t
DEtECtiON tEnt
FOR ANALYBS
ARSENIC
7440-3 8-2
CADMIUM
7440 -43 -9
CHROMIUM fl ? t M t
7a1047S
sf %
ia aeua tL3t*
Whiolt ve4i4asctn rsdicton ep Son isf
7 t$k1sclv? El ___
fl Ofl&Mltw npSpera.t
V 1 d it iMd process.ai t hp
aiaa i4$_ uo!13 (Aerobic process, with bs(
ol!ido i 4 (Spedflc osygen uptako 4
;1 O44ó I $ (Aerobic processes —$
— OpMe (RdsepHb l2sidmta
— Option 7 (75 percent nOde with no aislablized solids)
— Option S (90 perce n t solde with aistabilsed solids)
— OptionS (in)sdlon below lend solace)
— Option $0 (Inoosporstion bib soil wIthin Shows)
— Option II (Covering active snags sludge ant da ly)
“ CC
U Dn ib4on fld slaNt of paper, 4 tea W 1O 5 ? $ &
N IbcI$s s s atjinss of sIns skdgcz I Lt can
EPA Form 3510-2S (Iev 9-95)
PAGE 2 OF 3
S. Treatment Provided et Tow Fadtlty.
a Width daze of pathogen redLedon den the snag. sludge meet at you incity?
— ClsssA — Class B — Na lthar a r unknown
b. Desathe, on He tom or another sheet of paper, any tennent process.s used at
your Iscityt mba pathogens In snag. sludge:
n
Mt1 IbUI IT
7439974
COPPER
7440-50-8
LEAD
743992-I
------.-- -
—
f
*_.
J i
. —
L
t (
‘
‘
.
-
-
‘“ ‘rc
[ $jdtJa
w
J4
‘C- P
--
L
t2
‘
/
rntitx
,9P H
tie snags sludg. at your
In deWs solds)
s4h-ecsle demonstration)
Ot acat. demonstration)
Spar sorobscaly dugsstd sludge)
pIs d tamperstisre)
It it s)
MOLYBDENUM
7439-957
•
-
rrvt t
gt:ra.’
L I
U
NICKEL
7440 -02-0
SELENIUM
7702-49 -2
t OT
FEMR
OF
D.
L
c i
c i
0
I . - )
.
C ,
0 -
CD
-------
ACIUTY NAME: 1 NPDES PERMIT NUMBER:
S. Ss • Skid 5 . SonS I. Cths,F.s*ItIss. is s .wa skidg. item yew holity p i niidsd
ki anothel laclity kir UU 5n0fl 1 dsllbubon. uss 01 disposal?
_Y.s _No
P ri. p(Obids is Iolkiwklg kdo imalkinlcr Sis lacilty lss.Mng Pu sewage studgs:
7. U.. and DispesalSit... Previd. Pu. Icileskig kdoim tion tot oath abs onishlab
\roc.FoR OF
b Sit. contact Plains: _________________________
TiPs: _____________________________
Phone:()__
c. Sit. kueslon (Ccmglets 1012)
I. SSostorRout.t. _____
Cou nty: _____
CIty c i Town: _____
2. 1 ____________
S lat.: — Zip:
— Lewn ci horn. garilan
— Swlac. disposal
— lnckieraPon
— Municipal Sobd Wait. Lsl1 l
i 1\ la kustucions So
f\ det.nnM.w an oltiesi pwpoi.s ci PU$IS Iitication)
ii
j I cutSiy pcn Ity 91 law Puns Pus dcci i 4 andeS aSacimiunts wuns pipemd
ndermypiupgi isIcn itt with Pus iyst.m dc.Ignsdta
‘ sssws th4Iqidhed pemosmal propudy ga u and evaluat. Sw kPsnnalian
bruae4 Bpuedcn my kiqiay c i Pus psilpoor poisons eSue manage Ii. systsm
Wpios. pun ns diecly responsits.lci ga*ug mg the kufoimallon. the bulomuatlon ’
js, ip the I e amy knowledge and beSot. pu, accwats. siud compist.. lain
kw e Pu4I . are .Ignhlresd penalbes M s bsmt.ng Iii .. kubsinalon. kuntidcg
Pu. pou irg ol line and knpd sonmena lar Inowing v.OisScns.
Signatir. ci OlSeer ________________________
Name of Officer: _______________________________
(typodci pdcied
me
ap: iA USE
Send Pu. completed epp&sUon loins So:
I IEPA ID NUMBER:
I l( ’ ofltdal U,
‘u FoimA,cp’o..wd
I OMBMar .r
I Ap nmvaI Erobsa X .XX .XX
a. Namsollacity:
b. Faclity content. Name:
ills:
a. Fa ty mallng
7. Us. and Disposal BlIss. (contd)
d SiNtyp.:
— Ag ,Ic uIIit sI
— Fcr.st
— Pubkcconta n t
— Red a i u ua t lon
— Other (dosat.s):
at
t4
‘4
at
— Other ( saPus):
— Inclee rabon
EPA Foim 35 1G .2S (Rev. 945).
tAGE 3 OF 3
-------
AQUTY NAUC: NPOES PEHMJ NUMUEJI:
PART 2: PERMIT APPLICATION INFORMATION
1. SECTION A: GEN
Section A must be
2.
1 FcvmApp’ovsd
I 0MB Numb.,
I Ar-
4 • % -. -. -. -
;b,npiu . thh puti If you mwws,.d ‘ .. ‘ loony of thu quaslion. In thu PIIEUMDIAI$’( SfPORU*TION .uc1I (coo., pig. ,. In oIhsiwo.4.,cs.np1. . thIs p t II your Isethy i.. cc.
“ .pp Ifóc .n POE!rn!1II ., ç ourlidmy(IndudIng .ksdg..Iff.daty 1 s.qu..dng. oil. r.qutr.d u kiyo .Ito ..p.cIfto puilutoni Irn lu In Ii . purinli.
urpm . 1 iN. ton i, i t. you si. ,. to th upia4lci nt ThI. 1S thf y , urf.dNty” isI s. 4. mt, a nnfc.mitlou, I uthnIttsd
APPUCATION OVERVIEW — SEWAGE SLUDGE USE OR DISPOSAL INFORMATION
i icie iioni 6 IoiiApwuake to u i e
r sludg °‘ d’ °’ I mctIo.L,Th. vnstl.n provided c -
ERAL INFORPAFIION.
fr etedbya’ lcahth.
SE 11ON B: GENERATiON OF S AGE$LUDGS OR\
PREPARATION C A MATERIAL OERIVED FROM SE’UJAGE
SLUDGE. 1, 1 1 ‘
Section B must b j i$ttödby a ilcar1s uo elihec
1) Generate sewage skidge. or
2) DerIve a material from sewage skidge.
3. SECTION C: LAND APPLICATION OF BULK SEWAGE SLUDGE.
Section C must be conçleled b applicants who either:
) w k1ie Iai . I1 i’
) Øenerat sev ige skid Ji svhlclf s appl d the land b other4 *s
‘ jf : A lcar4 who m4 t efth* r bo!!Io( he tW abo crNe il
re e è ,ted fróm Ihis re jIrement 1 sf1 se Jãge s icige froi I tliélr
facility falls Into one of the following three categories:
1) The sewage skidge from this fadilty meets the ceiling and pollutant
concentrations, Class A pathogen reduction requirements, and one of
vector attraction reduction options IS, as Identified In the Instiuctions,
or
2) The sewage sludge from this facility Is placed In a bag or other
container for sale or give-away for application to the land, or
3) ibe sewage sludge from this facility Is sent to another facility for
treatment or blending.
EPA Fonn 3510.2$ (R.v 9-95)
on D jth t be oon Ieted by a PU1ts who own or operate a
lMhlaoe distiosat dlI0 t t
\ h II
5. SECTION k4NCINERATION
Sectl*j E i jpt be con leted by appt its who own or operate a
sewage sludge Incinerator.
I!
L Ucc
EPA ID NUUUER:
I (Awofl dafugo ’)
I
- . ,
id. oy ufl.olOty. ..i ,
- _> . - -,‘
F. _ }A _;
‘11
( 0
0.
-------
b. Ung sss
C Cont.ctputson
1’I.
d. Fon&y .ss
(not P.O. Dci)
1. Facity flad.: _________
— USGSm — Oth&(d.saib )
— Field .u,vi _____ ______________
N eFFO Fl
I. Is this laclity a Class I sks s msnag.m.ns (acuity?
___Yss _N.
¶ I 17
pait.m.d on s lathtys ssw . sludg.. &stniit the esisti .1.1 TaPs
pwtosm.d stalng Is hat Is yuvs. I not prsb4oUaly ssjbsdhlsd.
g. F.cIty dsaI n k Iont low m l .:
I
Indnol. I a typ. ci b Ity:
— Publicly own.d issts widwosts (P01W)
— Privataly cwnod v.sanont escelis
— Fedeisly ownsd lsabn.ot west.
— DIondn c i Ps.tm.ntoperldion
— Sullies spoiat sit.
— S.waj. dud 9 . kickwsbr ____
—
mont is
F I
Fl
—S
I lr Ir,
LI llW1 ei
S _
Phons msmber U Lows tnws# % 1
g is Is i eonI Is ownoi ci opuis (or both) ci tie laclity?
_____OWfl 5I _____cpSra cl i . , (dasaibs)___________
•. bde.t. whethcoirsspond.no rsgasdn IM psns Il sbes d ha *ucl.d la Its
lidIly or Its . pØears .
a—
ii. Total population ssnsd:
Al. F.clIly kilorsados.
IEPA II ,
(hroffidalua. ,)
c. Facityilasns L
• -. — 54 , I
; 5 ,- .: . ‘• - . . / .;-
Al. Fadlity ktlm.don4oenrd)
Facily isnglluds: __________
I
EPA Fonii 3510.25 (Rev 9-95).
PAGE lOPe
-------
NPDES PERMIT NUMBER:
At Psindi frilonnelon.
a Facitys NPDES permit iwmber (d p&.bIe):
b List. on lie form or an .ttschsnent. .1 cth.r Federal. Stale. and local permIts or
nstiucIon approvals ,eceived or applied for that isgulate this lealitys sewage
Permit Nianber: Tvøe of Permit
A.l. Federal ktdlsn R....
lend, or ás of ses
RosatvsCon7
_Y.s _N
Ifyss. dewths
AS. Topcgr.phls Map. ProvIde a lepogiaplilc map or maps (or other eppio wIsle nap(s) I
iuc map Is teraverteble) that shows I
a. La’-’ old wile used for ditiNag w 1usd hi pnblc ecords or oliandss
known bu s e ’L&l ebli 1/4 mis dli i faakty property bounderles.
Al. Un. aw1ng. Provids a lie *swittg and’or a rusralve desc4bon list IdealS.. al
sewage hidgs processes list en be employed thakig lie term ol the penni, kickideig
a S processes used 1w colecthig, dewatering, sterbig, or listing lewag. skidg.. Ii.
- destmauon(s) c l ii I ilds and acids leavmg sash wit. and ii methods used for
pathogen rodiction end s or attrai.lon r,decbon
EPA Fosm 3510-25 (Rev 9-95).
I IEPA ID NUUU fl
I i(1woMàa uuo W
- Form Appro.
0MB M,mb.,
I Ap wovaI Ezp,es XX-XX-XX
A.?. Corrn.ctor lifoniesdon.
A ,. any operational or mshitenencs .speds of lis faclity misled le sewage skidgs
gsnsrsllon, leatment. ua ordsposd me msponsleuity of. conlador?
_Y.s _No
N yes, provide Si. lollowbig for .adi contador (siodi adiltional p.g.s U necessary).
Stale:_____ Zip:
L _
PAGE 2 OF S
Name:
BOssier P0. Box:
City or
Phone:
Polutsnt Ccnvsnfrsdons. Uskig Ste (thi, below or a separate ottachmsrit. provIde
dsta on St. polkitont ..&aauows hi sewag, sludge from lv i (scaly. specried In
A Ba. and A Sb (NOTE: Vow pemulttrng authority may lequse you se sshnit
a tional hibernation)
0( 5)
r
b. Location old wa bodes wilds erie nile beyond the facIlys properly
i1
I
I
-------
I IEPAIDSIUMBER:
I IItor of8aal us only)
- Fotm App’obwd
I 0MB Mimbei
I C_ i.__
A UTY NAU :
NPUE5 PEHUIT NUMSER:
ASs. Uonltodn hdonnaUon los *31 F.cUItI... *1 IsakIms muss piovid. lie lidoimetion
reqaeitad below. bd.nnajion must be based on Si least one sample. II you have sitsln
mletmsbcn from mialple samples. piesid. up to 51w.. data pomts taken ii least om month
apait Oats piovidad b mu pcJkitanla letad below nuil be no more men too years o ld.
•
A.S.b. Addillonal Monftodn9 InfoimsUon los mess I Sludg. M.na .monI FacSll.s
Glass 5 kg e management fadkbes must pmvsd. lie lilosinason mssfadbelow.
kitomiaicn must be based oneS sail on sample. II you M silitaig k ilosmallon from
midbpl. samples. wovid. up to limo data points taken it sail on. month spelt Data
provided lot th polutants katad below muss be no moss than two years old.
— -.‘- , i - ‘- i-- i -‘ -I.” ij
POLIUTMIV SASS I 0OdI Wt*4TlRt I sAwq At$ I ANSLflIOAI. I p cno. vfl
casnsow1SYNIiSSN I “, ‘.vw’ I I 03TN00 “on* a’ -vmu
i -. - I , I I I - fdMIM
POLWTANT ISA1N e I COIIC(ilVRAtIoH l$AWIESATEI I pSTiCflOiiLEVU
.- çMasnel vsunea is°ø.. ’u 1 I .‘ I aas&vne
PART 503 METALS
OTHER METALS AND CYANIDE
ABSENI
4 e
ANflM0 IIY
JtM
7440-439
M T
7440.saR
LEAD
71 4 02.1
-4
i
l
‘
I t
-
1
‘
Al /
0-4 -7
VE
1440 -On.0
CYANIDE j
57.1O.&
JVOLATh.EORGAMCCOMPOUNDS
-
MOLYBDENUM
74 i9 90.7
NICKEL
744 02-O
SELENIUM
7702.44-2
3
5
t’•
)
.
‘
/
t
-•
-
I
I
r
•
i j I:
ji
Y
ACR( ElN
- -
LA%I &1ITRILE
07- 3-
LEN EI 4a
- — -.
I
-
I
-
-
— -
,
—
ZINC
M
L
ARBON TETRACHLORIDU
56-23-5
J
NUTRIENTS
TKN
AMMONIA
NITRi,JE
OTAL PII PHÔi dIS
oDCEuv U
,
L
N
t i
‘.
-;
t
I k
N
CHLOROBENZENE
I h DIBROMOMETHANE
76 . 3
j L ? l.rNYL
5
bIQlLOROBI JUOSaEU1 iNk
75-27-
1.1 -DIl HLOROETHANE
t
f\\ ;
d to 1 .
t
l .at
P -
C, t
L )
iiu.
.
7 5-31-3
t.2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
.
IRANS-l .2-DICHLORO-
ETHYlENE 1156- O.5
It- DICI4LOROEThYLENE
75-35-4
I
78 7-5
t .3-DICHLOROPF IOPENE
542-75-6
.
ETHYLBENZENE
tOO-Il- I
METHYL BROIIUE
74-839
a)
t a
0)
0
a
EPA Form 35 102S (Rev 9-95)
PAG - OF 6
-------
N
‘3
‘ -I
A IJI V
I
INPOES PERMIT NUMBER:
I
I
I
IEPA ID NUMBER:
- Foem Approved
0MB Numb.,
I Approval Espies XX-XX.XX
A.8.b. Monitoring Information for Class I S idge Management FacilitieS (conEd)
- PàLIITSN I)IAII I I) ALfl’.C*L T L
3tiwimnt .. .: ‘ I FOIIM .T
- ‘ . ‘ • I
‘ I . . I
P0UUt NTN*Im lAIWIA SAlE aiutyiIc*1.
5 ---
D*IICI1 ONLEVU
FORAMLTS$S
WIMUM
VOlATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (co. d)
BASE-NEUTRAL COMPOUNDS
METHYL CHLORIDE
74-87-3
ACENAPHTHENE
53329
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
7509-2
ACENAPHTHYLENE
205-964
I.I .22-TETRACHLOROETHANE
79-34-5
IEIRACHLOROEThYLENE
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
BENZIDINE
127-18-4
TOLUENE
106-88-3
UI.TR ICHtOR THANE
7155$
l .I.2-TR ICHLOROETHANE
79005
r- ’ rr—
--
& 4 ’
‘ç
\_____
L
- ‘r ‘ ‘—
______
-. -- -
.
“S
) ,j
(
92875
.9NZO(A)ANTHRAC92IE 2 .
-1
PEN (APYRE
5032-8
3.4 BENZCFLUORAN’IHENE..
205 99.2
i rzL
T
Si
I J
TRICHLOPOETHYLENE
79-014
VINYL CHLORIDE
7501-4
k
5 J
• .L -;”
t
. //
g
BENZO(0 14 1)PERYLEHE
19 1- 2 4-2 ‘ . I
BENZO(K)FLUORAJITHENE
207469.
BIs(2-cHI.cA oET,fo 1 n)
METHANE I 11 1-91-1
I
‘
k
ACO-EXTRACTA LE COMPOUNDS
BUS (2-CHLOROETHYL) -
EIHERII 11-44-4
P- CHLORO-M-CRESOL
59-50-7
815 (2-CHLOROISOPROPYL
ETHERI I OO-60-l
2-CHLOROFHENOL
BUS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
95-57-5
*4-OUCH OR0PHENQL’
HENOL
Lb 4 5 TI4 fLP
L°L Uf 3 L
“
‘
f
5 .
---
r
F
PHTHALATE (Il l-al- i
4-8flOMOPHENY ‘“‘
pHgp YLEmERi10I-s5- I
BUTYL BENZYLPhTHALAJEI
HONiU’HIALt42
J tI
j
J
‘—S
-
5 3 4- 6 9-I
81-65-7
2.4- DINUTROPHENOL
51-25-5
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL
EThER I 7005-72-3
2-NITROPHENOL
98-71 -5
CHRYSENE
2 1 101-9
4-NITHOPHENOL
1 00- 02- i
.
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
84-74-2
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
57- 85-5
DI-N-CCTYL PHTHMATE
11744-0
PHENOL
105-15-2
DIBENZO(A.H)ANTHRACENE
53-70-3
2.4.6-TRICHLORCPHENOL
95-06-2
l .2-DICHLOROBENZENE
95501
-
13-OICHLOROBENZENE
54 1-73-I
‘11
m
0 .
EPAFCnn3S IO .2S(R.v 9-95).
PAGE 4 0F5
-------
1 IEPAIDNUMBER:
j (A r o dnl only )
A.B .b. Monitoring information for Class I Sludge Management Facilities (conrd).
. Fom,App o, sd
I CMBMm b
I Aocaov Ei wi
FAQLITT NAME:
NPDE5 PLRINT NUMBLR :
N
IS
‘ I iiii*iiø hii,ui ørI aMLY IICM.
Ii”! I I . ! I- vsis
PGuuWITKuW - 10 SIMirIONI MSlPIADA!1 I
.‘ _I s ’. I’ - I °P:Io * is:.
UPOUNDS (conrd)
PEST 1QDES
ALDAIN
309-00-2
ALPHA-BHC
319-84-6
BETA-BHC
319-85-7
.
PHTNALA1E
DELTA-BHC
j
._______
Z
GAMMA-BHC
M-S1-9
- ;; j
ri :
%
.
0
-
S
4 j
fHI.ORDANE
•57 44
. .1
.
I
/
4.4- DD
72-51-B’,
•
.-
.
‘
I -
L
-
:
j
I Y
: i L V
&4-DDE
-72-88-9
4.4-DDT ..
56-29-3 ‘t
60-57-I
ALPI4A- NDO .JUAN
959-98-8
BETA-EN000ULFAN
33213-65-9
r-
.
.-
fl-47-4
NDOSULFA1I SULFAW
I. 2 ?.CDPV! EN9
‘
f J
1031-07-8
EN0 N f
D 1Y E
HEfrIACHLOR - -$ -‘
4 d p
‘
-p
,t
IL
‘ - -w -
76-44-8
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
1024-57-3
PCB-t016 (AROCLOR 1016)
12674-11-2
PCB-122 1 (AROCLOR 1221)
11104-28-2
PCB- 1232 (AROCLOR 1232)
1 1141-16-S
PCB-1242 (AROCLOR 1242)
53469-21-9
PCB- 1248 (AROCLOR 1248)
12672-29-6
PCB- 1254 (AROCLOR 1254)
1 10 9 7-69- I
EPA Font, 35 10 -2 5(Rev 9-95)
PAGE SOFa
-------
. Farm App’ov
I 0MB Mtmber
J Appvcva Exp roa -X .XX
AQUTY NAME: NPDES PERMIT NUMBER:
“LOb. Monitoring Infonnatlon lot Class I Sludge Management Facilities (cont ’d).
I IEPA ID NUMBER:
L I( !! o’*)
POtlUVANT M*IM
CAl I GOTAT NL1I ,SS
—
DO ’ Wt#AticlI $A I DM5 AN*Lfl)OM.
* t I flaiD
—
bEn 0N’V
-
. .
PLUI1 IIVNM*.
- CU usutsi vwuiicos
r.-..-
I WIMfl0tI
•IS•,
..
$I * DATa
- -
r . .. . -
AIt .LTTIC*5
PaiThOD.
- -. . - ... .
i*js’ !L
,oflhiMLrJ t
• - •“ -
PEstlaocs (c nrd)
PCB-t260
11098825
TOXAPHENE
8001-35-2
.
.
OTHER
2,3,7 ,S-TETRACHLOROD IBENZO-
P-DIOXIN ITCDDYI146OI-8
r
L ’’ ½
- - Y
•• - i !
F -
1
I
.8. C.sffRc.don Read arid subialt dii tolowv lg caritcabon stalomenI with this applcaDan Refer b Ii. IisDucdons to detennins who Is en elks, br priposes of 8O osrsbcaban
Indicat, which pad . of Form 2S you iavi complet.d and are submitting:
0 LImited Background Information packet P.miit Application Information padist:
H Pad A (G.nsral Wormstbn)
Pad B (GeneratIon of Sewage Sludge or Preparation at a Material
Derived from Sewage Sludge)
Pail C (Land Application of DuSt Sewage Sludge)
Pail 0 (Surface Disposal)
Pad E (Incineralion)
I codify under penalty claw Ihat this doatmerd and Oil attachments wars prepared under my direction or supervision fri acoordance with the system designed to ossurs
that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my Inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those
persons directly responsible for gathering the Information, the Information I ., to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate. and complete. I am awars that
there are significant penalties for submitfing false Information, Including the poss iIity of line and Imprisonment for knowing violations.
Signature of Oftlcer
Name of Officer:
(typed or printed)
Official Til, c i Office,: -
Telephone Numb.,:
Dat. Signed:
Upon request d the permItting authority, you must submit any other Information necessary to asases sewag. sludge use or disposal pradlces at your facility or ld.nlIy
appropriate permitting requirements.
Send this completed application to: -
“1
I
11
EPA Form 35 10 .2S (Rev 9.95)
PAGE S OF S
-------
AQLI1’Y NAME: NPOE$ PER*T NUMOER:
I IEPAIDNUMBER:
I I(loroBaa(uflonfr)
. FcnnApprond
I 0MB Msanbn
I ApprcvelExpun .XX-Xk-XX
B. GENERATION OF SEWAGE SLUDGE OH PREPARATIÔNÔFAMATERIAL DERIVED FROM SEWAGE SLUDGE
- ‘ . - r?9i 4 t ” ‘ - 4 ’ ; - r - c - - e ‘,ft’ 4’ - ‘ :-t- - - . . ‘ - - -
-4 s
t i Assail Osuisiulud 0. SItu.
Total ày malt tans pat 385.d.y pitIed ganuatad S ymi bably: __________
t i Assist RsuJi..d bus 00 SItu. Iyow tally regslas snag. skadgu tram another
batty Sr seenuni. ua..at thpr*pmvut the Slowsig kitonnulon Sr each tacitly
Sn ni uIch snag. sludge S rsoslvsd. U vu mouSe sewage sludge Vain mats tha t
ouw Sally. attach uddsonal pug.. as neasawy.
a Facity ismu I
b Cofladparuau
N * matS
o. Mithig SThs
a FacItyed*esu
(nat o Box)
e Total ày metric tans per 38$-day pettodreoukuid from S i laStly:
rv”r rrq,n t ”
\5 puw.)1tN4!onnaton ueeedeoIPup. tultqnenipmcusseu fi
i i
tu&cu peduoguns at wuctar ewaalon dusadenstica:
EPA Font 3510-25( 1kv 5-95)
ti Truatinenu ProvIded at Yotw FecitityL
a. Which dais at pathogen mthiclon Ia achIeved lot Sue sewage sludge at your
( sc a ly?
_CIaasA _CIuaB _Nuitharatiathuown
It Ouscuibe. on this (a nn or another stueul of paper, any treatment puwoussas used at
i i
c. Which vuqSatvaasu ruàacdon apSe S 4 ui S the snag. sludge atyoui
LI U
— Option I (lAninum 38 porouS ruO.sctaon In usatlu solt)
— Option 2 (Anaerobic process, wilt bunch-scale demonslrslaon)
— Opbon 3 (AerobIc process, with bench-scale tsnonsualsu)
— Option 4 (Spactic oxygen uptake rate S aurabicaly ógustad
None or unknown
d. Desculbo, on INs font or another Steel of paper, any treatment processes used S
your (scaly ta màaoe vuctar eeacbon piopettea of snug. ukidge:
flf 5
at
N
01
C a )
a
a
-------
‘WLI1’T NAUt: NPOt5 PtHMII MUMUtH:
b Is sewsg. skic s subject bids sedan placed hi begs a odier contaIners S sal.
a g ive-any S spplcseon ta the land?
M FO P aflF
ipIs. SalStl - jau pleon.w.è. nldn n e Sn çw sthet so’dshwt MgeW
ftqØi Sknds plealoI SucdonhlthgesledrwvandL*C
táeo A:’ < . st .,. g , ‘g 2 ij-:’ “l•L . * : ‘ ‘
t C a -. C j . i ’ ’ ’ - ‘ - S < % ‘ )t %
SI. Sal. a Glvs-Awsy hi a Bag a Ciba Conlslna (a ApplIcatIon loSe Land.
a. Total ày meet baa per 38S-dsy padodol sewage shidge placed his beg or other
oonlskia at yaw lacilty (a sale or give-away let appiabon b the lend. _____
EPA Fonn 3510-2S (Rev 9-95).
Fain App-owed
Numb.’
J Approval Espies fl-n-n
S i. Sale a Gin-Away his Begot Other ContaIner lot Applostlon to the Land4confd)
ass 3a a . a
11 /AN I I
Ia. cooL.
sewage sludge torn your (Wily? — Yes — No
Which dsss 01 pathogen sedition S addend Ste sewage sludge at the
aahhig bd ?
_CIassA _CIasaB _Nsteraisiknown
PAGE 2 OF S
I
US. Ties lment Prevlded at Your FacUlty. (oonfd)
a. DewS. on 115 (ann a amber sheel of paper. any other sewage sludge
flatnunt a tdsndng eclivlles not kienilted hi(s) - (d) above:
I IEPAIPNUMUEH:
I I (*wo a d use on4’)
b. Attach, wIth Ida spgllcatlon. a copy old Isbels e rmwSe that aooornpeny the
sewage sludge beIng soki a given sway hi a bag aethercontskier S spplSatlon
ta the laid
Total ày mettle en
bet Is sppied ta l v
a. FacUlty waling sdàees
SPeel a P0 Box:
C ltyorTor in: —
Slab: — Zip _______
-------
FA LITY RAMS: NPOL8 PSRMIT NUMUEII :
U.S. Bli imanS Oil Bile las Trssleisnl ci Blinding. (scAld)
Desoiths, on dO kim or another thou c i paper, any habosni process.. used at
Ive rscetang tecity te rs&ce pathogen. ki uwsge skidge:
I. Does ti Iacldvkig (aciuty provide edthonld ossonent le m scs vsc stva isc
ableilsbcs ii Pie s.wag. skidge? — Yes No
wider I
— _7
— C il
— Opbon 2
Cpeon3
____Option4
— Oplon 5
_____ bonl
— Opuon 7 (75 percent sobds with no xislebdlzed sd s)
— Opan S (90 percent scida with wistthèged solids)
_Nono
D.sath., on lids born ci umIse sliest ci papa,, any seasnent processes used at
N rvTi’ritrr
I I L
g. Does Pie . celvkç tacitly provide any eddionci boebuent ci blsndiig ecivilea not
identied kt (s) ci (I) above? — Yes — No
I yes. dewSe—on this term ci another sheet ci pepsi—Pie keabnent ci blendng
not idenetled in (e)si (I) above:
EPA Form 35 10-2S (Rev 9-95).
. FsnnAppmwd
I 0M B Manlier
j Approval Espiroa XX ’X ’XX
a. Tool dry msvlc lens per 365-day pedod ci s oge sludge apg 4isd te ab land
__applicabon Os: _______
ftFt ± UeE
P GE3OFI
I IEPA ID NUMBER:
I Iffiroffidalua. o4’)
U. S. Shipment Off Bus Sc, T,sstmsnl or Blending. (aonld)
It Uyouansedyesb(o),(l),w(g),aaeopyolanyk*rmaionyouprsvide
the recoAiz’ig tacily 0 comply with 1 1w ‘iwice and necessary lilarmanon’
,.ryskomentol 40 CFR 603.12(g).
L Does the mcelvktg (aedily place wasp. sludg, from you ladity is. beg ci other
conleslar (ci sate ci gtwi.away be ppØ tion 0 the lend?
_Y.s _Plo
I I yes, provide copy claP labels ci node.. that accompany the prodruct bebig sold
c i given way.
5.1. Land Ap,ac.Ilon ci BidIt Sewage Sledge.
I I no. submi a sepy ci die kiwi eppI i plan with Pd. - - -i (sue
kisbuwions).
_Yss
a. Ate any lend ppØ ’ - ”i silos ki’aled Ii Stales other than lie Stale where you
garierale sewage skedg. or danve a malerild born sewage sledge?
_No
-------
AaUTY NAME: NPDES PERMIT NUMBER:
S i. Land ApplIcation ol Bulk Sewage Sludge. (oonfd)
If yes. decth.—cn this lona a another sheet of paçs—how you nosly the
permutengauthodly S the States where the laid application sites aie located
Previcte scopyolme notlalon
.s .. .,,...:- ;‘ ;
: - — 4 ’ . . .4 .
B.l. Sa uce msposat Li
a Total *y meet snags sludge your ty placed on i
thsposal as per ZSday pared; -
I
b Do you no or opalate ci suifaoe 6 sItes which you send i
Sósposal? .1/ 1’
Yes t’ N6 ”fl ’ - t
— 2T’t2 ’ tcr ’ I
llno ,snswerBlc-BSf SeathsurteadsposSsltethatyout noa
operate U you send sewage sludge te mo ’s that one such surface ôsposd site,
attach a&lbo’iS pages ss neassely.
NL 3 TEfQR
Contact Is. — Site netter —
Q [
Site cperster
S
e M.frig S*sss _______________________________________
I. Total &y mehic tens of snap sludge front your tsdtty placed on this stain
6tposal site per 365-dey permd:
s Point Approved
I 0MB Number
I Approval Earphea fl. .fl
CanplsteSedfon tSkaews i ufSr from o4w Milky Is ftodfn I eswsgs sludge \
kel rstov, .; - - ‘— . --,
L’e.r.’;A4 — -.‘ :
5.5. kickmastlost.
a. Total sky metric tens of snag. sludge front pow isdity lived mel snags sludge
kichieraters pat 365-ty — ________
b Do you no a operate eli sewage skudg. kmdnsratcrs In whIch sewage sludge (rem
your fadlilty Is (fred?
_Yes No
thai you do can a
wage sludge ktcktarator,
- F4@4drttStE
Iosapia A& à , . t M. !e114 1s pissed on .msSpd
I “t . ? -rJ .*- ,. ..-‘.
, 4.-.. \ ft¾
Bit Dfspoaai fr i a MflM Solid Waste L.ndfll. Piculdo the foltew hg kilonnadon for
eaSt nwoldpof sold waste SaWN on wiodi snag. sludge from your lodlity Is placed U
snags sludge Is placed on moss that one mwmlc%uS solid waste landhi, atteSt
a dcnS pages as necessary.
PAGE 4 OF $
I IEPA ID NUMBER:
I I( ” oMdal unon4’J
a ktSnars italkig edsksss:
__Owner _Operator
a
a )
N
a)
‘3
.4
EPA Form 3510-2S(Rav 9-95)
-------
A UTY NAME; NPDES PERMIT NUMBER:
810. - Disposals • Municipal Solid Wasts LandfilL losard)
a. Hems .ltan I:
b Lat U CantsCL Hams:
rl
s()__
Contact Is. — Lai I esnee — Lancili opsraIo
c. Haãig *sss mimis ial sold waits lwidld
Seosi ai P.O. Box
GlyciToam: —
Lo on of insolcipsi
SDsst r
County:
Cay ci Toen:
• TotsI ynisidcmnai
solid waits land iS psi
NOT FOR OF
I IEPA ID NUMBER:
I -
Sb. Disposal n • Municipal Solid W.sts LandfilL (oosi(d)
Feint App iro..
I OMBMm*ci
I Appuvof Erpoei XN-XX-IX
List, on Sits loim si—I aftadtmsnt Sw ntanben of SI other Fsderal. Siats end loini
psimli that fegidale ths operason of this mainic al solid wssts tan iS:
Panel Nienber: Tvsa of Panel :
g. &bmli. *4th thIs rØ -dwI. isbimaliwi le delennisswhsthsr Sw smsags sicd.
meets apØ-u’le mql*.msnts Si lisposal of sewage skim. is a muiddpil solid
waits lanoll ( 1g.. tssdts of paSt hitsi kg lest end TCLP lest).
I aulsts sat loith I i
FIICIAL USE
Slats: — ________
; ; •: li
14
as
Ca3
as
EPA Font 35 10-2S (Rsv 9-95).
PAGE 5 0F5
-------
i*i iJiv PERMIT NUU9ER:
C. LAND APPLICATION OF BULK SEWAGE SLUDGE
. .. . .
Comrkl. Section C for s.wJ . sludge that I, upyII,d to the and 1 union. any of th Pov lng condldone .ppi t’
The eew.g. sludge meet, lli Tibtol sllkig osnonniratlon., the Tshio3 poik unt .onconbnone, C$sis4 pathogen Hqu efld n of v.otor att,.o kn radtkotlon
‘ op %.14IflhIO4B.4 M Or . , 4 ) t
‘
You pruvid the iIIm.g. Iudg. to snout., leclilty for t,.stm.nd,r blending ((Woui&ë n..d)a y J
______________________________________________________ s’,’ k
Ci. IduntlIcalon of Lend Applc .dsn Sit..
a. Sit. nsms ci minther:
b. Sit. bcflcn.
I. Sholorl
City or Tow
2 Lalnzds:
CS. O*nsi Infonn.Uon.
a. A,s you St. ownor ci 04 had application alt.? — Yes
b. If no• pindd. Its Iollowicg Wa ,maticn sboutl Its ownm
IttI 3 I
NL) 0 .j .FOH OF
CflyolTo wn ____________ Stale: — Zç _______
CS. Apple, itilo,matlon .
a Ar. you Its psr.on who apples. or who h tupensibi. for .p ,’c.uion ci. sewag.
skidgs I i had .ppicat ion sit.? — Ye. ___ No
b II no. pruld. Its foflowktg Wannalion St. person who applies:
Name:
Phone: ______________
SleelorPO Boa: ____________________________________
City or Town: _______________
EPAFcsm35lO 2S(Rev 995)
( )
Stab. — Zip:
C l. Sits Type. IdanIly Its type of hod applIcallon sit. horn among St. blowing:
b What liSts nlwogsn isqiAremsid for Ida amp or vegotatlon?
•
U
J U, Lma
PAGE 1 OF 2
a
IEPA ID NUMBER:
I(*wotEad us. on
- Fain, APF-OV.d
1 0MB Number
,valExpur
— Ag d aci t uadl wid
_No
-------
FA UTT NaME: 1 r° 3 PERIRT NUMBER; ] Ii*wo’ttari” use vn4
IEPA ID NUMBER;
Apø vnd Expl,s, XX- .XX
I O .AIBMMnt,
C.S. Vast., £tVpdlas Rr’-dsq. CS. cwndauv. Loadings sid Remaking AIOIIIS.I.. (oonrd)
_Ysa _No
At. sty vsclav awscaon N& i rst iflmsnIs met wiwn sewage dudg. Is .9pbad to
5 iVVb n 4 207 N . sewage iludgs stied to CPLR may g bs spçlisdblils ills.
— — N yji. p(o%4ds lus tollowlng hbinadon
N ‘.s. .swww Cl. and CS b. PIITIIIUkIS siá ioiW _______________________
Coded psnon: ______
v.a., IlPedm i , Plane: ( ___________
8usd icon Ida Inqity. ha. biAt sewage sludge s ” ud to CPtR b. . . j W to
eta alto ____ ____
kdannflon to, sussy diry other list yats list Is . s&Ing . as
sewage skidgs — 4Ij— to C R i to N i. ills iI July 201993 N
more than one such Iadbly sends sewegs sludg, to Sic ills. a th a lond pegas
U p 1 4 ends piondli w sisdeg l i t o ____ ____
std lii gmimd.walsf monltonng pr áaes used to obtain less dali.
c’ - t -.r.r. -’ - -
mØC gj
ia.$ ,
C I. CsendSIVS Loading. sod Rams Wig *8utm.nIs.
& Haus you ..ilsd.d Ii. p.mthang authority In Ni. Stata whe,. la buta swaags
skidge sullied to CPLRs usi he appbed. to ascertain whole, bids sewage sljdgv
sdlsCPtRslasboensppbodtothlss*eondrsmc.Jut 1 t2O. 1993?
Name 01 tacibly: _____________________________
ML USE
or P’b. Boa: ______________________________________
City or Town: _______________ Slat.: —
b
C.7. G ,oun4Wat Monitodsig.
an
N
1:
b.
Ate any giuaôwaas mamt.mg Nit. svaIa . li i land .pptoa8n ills?
ii n.ces.aiy.
EPA Form 35 10-2S (I ev 9-95)
PP 2 OF 2
-------
A UTV KANE: NPDES PERMIT NUMBER:
D. SURFACE DISPOSAL I
Fano4p d
I OMBManb.r
I F -—
,,
. i:
DI. hihimnalon en Anise Bswsgs 5Iud s linus.
a. Link nuns or nunbsr
b Unit hicaitcit:
C.
d
N_
g. B you en......d no ts shier D I.. or 0. 1. 1. aresesi lie lollonbig p,sslan:
Is iii boun y oP lii nolvs sewag. skI s unit is is then I SO insIsts kern Oil
p.u,.aily kie allis unlace dspossl sits? — Yen — No
I you. pwwld . lii actual thtsnce fri insIsts:
flsrnó*ig cep.dty of ads. sowag . sludge unit, hi y rnstñc Isns: ______
Anicipsied dowis ts io,adlvs sowag. sludge unit. I known: _________
Prnvl , wili Oils appl Ion. a ccçy of uiy dosins p 111 1 list has Win wlcpsd
ha lila sdvs sswags sludge unit.
Is l s salve siwags
uipiy Iscit iWs c l ii i then pow tAniuty?
I I i _v.. _,in
I
i m ion s4it 7 tcui IadNy. U s.wsgs sk.dg. is sarI
wags uludgs unit from mare thin h 1 . suth is ity. stIsth a Iarial
st4_J cit
11
IEPA ID NUMBER:
I oi’omdal us. only)
0.1. hilormstics ow Active Sswsg. Sludge Units. (oontd)
K P,ovkhi di. luL.. kdonnalon:
S. Do.slisscSvsi
conójcthv ityol lxii
II yes. dsaa*s ii. isis, (or altadi a dewipdon):
F.de is l . S lut.. local pinnit(s) hi, leaduats spossh:
o Fealty maring d&sss
a _
_CtAssA _OassB _Nonsorimknoun
s. hiatt.. on t. hinn or wioltsv sliest of p.par arty issinent pinosuss used al
lie cli ii hidhty Is e&os p.thogsuis hi sow.ge sk,dgs:
EPA Form 351025 (Rev 9-05)
PAGE 1 OF 2
-------
S.wsg. thido , is. 0th Facillise (effl4)
(b0maa tu51 only )
D.3. V alor AlVacilon Reducilon. (conid)
blth wic r oplon I adilpved belars sewage sludge isv.s
lie other laokty?
— Oplan I (I.laliun 35 *icetl m i i Li willIs wIth)
— Opion 2 (Anaei.bk process, with bench-scsi. demonstration)
— C)pson 3 (AerobIc process, will bench-scale deinonsltstini)
— Opsen 4 ( 8pr c oqgsnupbe.. ut. is seichacaly digest.d
— Cp$on5 (Awobis processes pkis raised t.mpsuklus)
— OpsonS (RpiIt.I2widr.t.lnstll
‘Aol
— Cpbon $
— Noce or
I
D I. Orsund ’Wsier Uonhodng.
De.atheonlO!
lie other laIty It I
a. iIdi wedor atsecion rodetion oplon. N any. Is met whsn sewage skidgs is
placed on this acIwi sewage sludge w ig?
— Oplion S tb*dlm bela led . alac.)
— Opbon IS (Iceouporalmi bit. soN within I how.)
— on II ICo a acI w sewage sludge wiN deNy)
I
b. Hiss ground.wsew moneosieg plvguoun been popared (or lii ac ve sewage
skidgeund? ‘
— Yes
_No
H Tj ° P r ° ’ ’
L L L
c. Hess you cb)amed a ewlgcadon a qiaItl .d gxouns.wat.r scisedsi that lie
— below the alive sewage sludge wet has not twin conlednaled?
— Yes
_No
I yes. .ithml a copy oh the ceidIca n with this pwinfl •g’ ’ ’don.
DL SIte -Sp.cIDo LknUs. Are you s.skbig alIt-upedic polbiowl NuNs is let sewage
sludge placed on the ale. sewage skidg witi?
_Yss _No
lip.s. sithmk bikaTnalon It support the lerpissi her .k.-.psc& poliacat Nails e4Ii Ils
ag ip —Io n.
DL
I.
b. Dssaths, on I I . harm or .noth sliest ci paper. any keaks.t ei sses used at
the acbv sewage skidge wiN It ieô.aos vector altrartlon piopefties ci sewage
sludge:
a
I i .
aS this alive sewage sludge wiN or
11
CO
CO
. 5
05
0
z
0
C .,
. 0.
-S
C D
11
U’
0-
0’
a
CD
‘p
‘0
Co
-I
05
C0
C D
U’
-S
0
8
•8
0
in
Co
CD
CA
EPA Form 3510.23 (Rev 9-95).
F
2 OF 2
-------
AI UUT NA.c:
I E. INCINERA11ON
nrut r nm, usuMD n:
I
EPA I D NUMBER:
dal us• .,,
Coi p lsieth$.icIonliyo.siwageciudq.MIscws j.sludg.lndnIor. . ..‘. • ‘.
‘ -‘ k (
toiJpIelu This ..cdci, i be or sch II bI IIIQS It widsis you un SuwsgS .Idd j . II oU hr. Iu n e th on .,ajáus,dg.
i Ieeselh .si urossssty, .
- - . - - . vi• . ‘
El. bidn.r.tor Idsntlltc.ilon.
a. bidnen. iiams or nimtb
is iodnens r iocadon
. Fomi Approved
QUO Nu.i,.,
‘c. : ; ;
t - .. Zi
El. Mercury NESHAP. (oonfd)
A cu..,MW raged ci s teslag end aan.n ien ci ongoisig fridnsmtor
openIng pemm.lsns h csIng thci 1w iodnentor has met. end oil
condnu. mess. the msfcwy NESHAP emission ra UmIL
compiwios. submit a conhlisi.
rhas met. end oil conInus b
Subm4. widi this oppicabon. iobmsion. sl data, end desalpion ci measures
taken that demoniCat. whether the sewage sludge kithieneed Is befyThan.
I pemmelers k i abng that the I
has been .nd oil coninus ta be met.
Mercury NESHAP.
a. How Is owiipienos wIth 1w msiwry NESHAP being demeniatsiad?
— Sta stIig — Sewage skidg. san lng
(I clisdied, compista £4 is) (I ciwdied, complels E.4.c)
Arsenic.
Ca&nkjm:
Chiromlum:
is. Submi a copy oi l. resole ci psdeunaiic . tasdag end si.,,.oaL.g documsniaden
(kickidng taitbig dais ,) with this opplisailen
is If stedi stkig Is corolictad. sithrnfl the lulosiog k fonnstIon with l s oppilostlon:
L I
a.
• Copies of meonay emission rita issis le the r io most recent esis io
— Yes
N
_No
L I.
EPA Fonn 3510-25 (Rev 9-95)
-------
A UTY NAUEI NPDES PERMIT NUMBER;
E.7. Risk Spsd!Io Cons n sUoshaCIi,outhaw.
• Risk speak ..s..bahal (RSC) us.d ha duwi*am. hi mlacgr.n. peiaLhi
w i l m a; __
b. VBUth bssls was vs.d bdslv inMs lie RSC?
__Tabis2 hi4OCFRIO3I3
— Eq.isiailhi4o CPA 5 .43 (s-s hinnkhalIo.i)
a. N Tsbl. 2 was us N.iofy 1w typi olbickimaslo, us.d math. basis:
— fb dzsdhad i ass saubitsi
— FkaIissdbsdp ) qs n bsi and assi
— Othi
d NEqi isIonIwuu
Duamsi itaofcnof
canceubadon hi i Sa
ES. Opsisdonsi Slandsid Is, ToW Hydrocsibons (ThC) a, Csib.n Monoald. (CO1
N you monils, THC. compls lie (d1owm .
icUthTIS fowls Oil
W ISUNULIU
1(’ ’°
- Fans Appioasd
0MB ManS.,
- I AppvovdEzpveas - -XX
ES. OpsisIng Paisiwatsis.
a. hithiesa lyp.:
b. Coivtbuslon l,mp.f.as.: __________________________
Submit, with lila .pplcadon. nçpo ,wi dowmsntsoon with as slng doe(s). a
d.saI hin ci hanpwakx . nisasiwanwil and data . ..nk IO and h., n. iys ns.
and. descilpdon of h with cenibualon Isingersaa. date hays b..n a gngad.
Masinium dssl n
enteson dascdbi ig how us had
• Submit. with Ills i 1 —Ion don inianteion ussd te ds.$ma raw THC concenwadon, __________________________
a. Raw v*is hi, COconcunsadon hi s snduisns. hi pew:
b M aeccntens hi steub pa. hi pcuid: ______ Eli. Ala Polullon Control Equipment. Submit, with Ills a Idol . 5th
a. Oaypn awicsn talon h ’ s sts gu. hi psm.it ______ polidlon contol sqiipment us.d maui Ills .swaps .kidgs Inchisiaha.
d ColTecild v.5a fma CO conesthalon In audi emissions, hi ppn:
•. Submit, with lila apØ lon, docianinwion used bdedws raw CO o. .talon.
mclst,s cailteM. osypen cuncentalon. .sid conscI d CO cos ntadan.
I
conmanvsuons, kidiadng dais(s) of teaL math this içp 5 bon
vakis submitted hi:
— Actisi atedi height
— Ciadwitla sisdi height
I. Submit. with this plcabon , Idennalon doaansnlng lie oparaing pstsmshaa ha
ths sir polution contol dabice(s) used ha this wasps sIs a iticitisrates.
nisiska. awiteM, saypa saicenkslon. uns me. u . n mewromn.
N you mailter CO. ownplels us islowbig:
hi pi.cu
or nsbon mono,id.:
b. P.rcentoxyg.n:
a. Molsisan content
d. Contbuslon Nmp.rakan:
s. Other:
EPA Foam 3510 ’23 (Ray. 045)
P• 20F2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 I Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
62645
Instructions for Completing Form 2S
Application for a Sewage Sludge Permit
Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: The
public reporting and recordkeeping burden
for this collection of Information is estimated
to average 11.6 hours per response. This
estimate includes the time needed to review
instructions: develop. acquire. install. and
utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting. validating, and
verifying information. processing and
maintaining information. and disclosing and
providing information: adjust the existing
ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements:
train personnel to respond to a collection of
information; search existing data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information: and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information. An Agency may not
conduct or sponsor. and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently
valId 0MB control number.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection
of information. Including suggestions for
reducing the burden. to C2iIeL OPPE
Regulatory Information DMsIon. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2136). 401
M St. SW.. Washington. DC 2046O . and to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs. Office of Management and Budget.
725 17th St. NW., Washington. DC 20503.
Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the
0MB control number in any correspondence.
Do not send the completed application form
to these addresses.
Overilew
This application form collects
information from persons that are
required to apply for a sewage sludge
use or disposal permit.
Who Must Submit Application
Information?
The following persons are “treatment
works treating domestic sewage’ that
are required to submit sewage sludge
permit application information:
• Any person who generates sewage
sludge that is ultimately regulated by
Part 503 (I.e., it is applied to the land.
placed on n surface disposal site, fired
in a sewage sludge incinerator, or
placed in a municipal solid waste
landfill unit);
• Any person who derives material
from, or otherwise che.r.gec the quality
of, sewage sludge (e.g.. an intermediate
treatment facility such as a composting
facility. ore facility that processes
sewage sludge for sale or give away in
a bag or other container far application
to the land), if that sewage sludge is
used or disposed in a manner subject to
Part 503;
• Any person who owns or operates
a sewage sludge surface disposal site;
• Any person who flies sewage
sludge in a sewage sludge incinerator:
and
• Any other person required by the
permitting authority to submit permit
application information.
For purposes of this form, you refers
to the applicant. This facility and your
facility refer to the facility for which
application information Is being
submitted.
Facility should be interpreted to
include activities potentially subject to
regulation under the sewage sludge
program—e.g., areas of sewage sludge
treatment, storage, land application.
surface disposal. or incineration, even if
such activities do not occur at the same
location.
Which Parts of The Form Apply?
Form 25 is presented in a modular
format, enabling information collection
to be tailored to your facility’s sewage
sludge generation, treatment, use, or
disposal practices. The form is divided
into two main parts:
• Port I Is limited screening
information that must be submitted by
“sludge-only” (non.NPDES) facilities
that are not applying for site-specific
pollutant limits and have not been
directed to submit a full permit
application at this time.
• Port 2 must be submitted by
facilities that are submitting a full
permit application at this time. These
Include the following:
—Facilities with a currently effective
NPDES permit.
—Facilities that are required to have, or
are requesting. site-specific pollutant
limits, including “sludge-only”
facilities that are applying for site.
specific pollutant limits. (Note: all
sewage sludge incinerators are
required to have site-specific
pollutant limits.)
—Facilities that have been directed by
the permitting authority to apply for
a permit at this time.
Complete either Part I or Part 2. but
not both (unless otherwise instructed by
the permitting authority).
Part 2 is divided into the following
sections:
• Section A is general information to
be provided by all applicants that fill
out Part 2.
• Section 8 must be completed by any
facility that generates sewage sludge or
derives a material from sewage sludge.
• Section C must be completed by
any facility that applies bulk sewage
sludge to the land, or whose bulk
sewage sludge is applied to the land.
(Most applicants that provide this
information will also submit Section B
information, because it is unlikely that
EPA would permit a land applier who
does not generate or change the quality
of sewage sludge.)
• Section D must be completed by the
owner/operator of a surface disposal
site.
• Section E must be completed by the
owner/operator of a sewage sludge
incinerator.
You need only submit the Sections of
Part 2 that apply.
Part 1: Limited Background
Information
Part I requests a limited amount of
information from “sludge-only”
facilities (facilities without a currently-
effective NPDES permit) that are not
requesting site-specific permit limits
and are not directed by the permitting
authority to submit a full permit
application at this time. This limited
screening information must be
submitted as expeditiously as possible,
but no later than 180 days after
publication of an applicable use or
disposal standard. It is intended to
allow the permitting authority to
Identify these facilities, track sewage
sludge use and disposal, and establish
priorities for permitting.
1. Facility Information.
a. Provide the facility’s official or
legal name. Do not use a colloquial
name.
b. Provide the complete mailing
address of the office where
correspondence should be sent. This
may differ from the facility location
given in Question i.d.
c . Provide the name, title, and work
telephone number of a person who is
thoroughly familiar with the operation
of the facility and with the facts
reported in this application, and who
can be contacted by the permitting
authority if necessary.
d. Provide the physical location of the
facility. If the facility lacks a street
address or route number, provide the
most accurate alternative geographic
information (e.g.. township and range.
section or quarter section number, or
nearby highway intersection).
e. Indicate the type of facility.
A publicly owAned treatment works
(POTW) is any device or system used in
the treatment (including recycling and
reclamation) of municipal sewage or
industrial wastes of a liquid nature
which is owned by a State or
municipality. This definition includes
sewers, pipes, or other conveyances
only if they convey wastewater to a
POTW providing treatment.
A privately owned treatment works is
any device or system which is (a) used
to treat wastes from any facility whose
-------
62646 Federal Register! Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 I Proposed Rules
operator is not the operator of the
treatment works and (b) not a POTW or
federally owned treatment works.
A fed emily owned treatment works is
a facility that is owned and operated by
a department. agency, or Instrumentality
of the Federal Government that treats
wastewater, a majority of which Is
domestic sewage, prior to discharge in
accordance with a permit Issued under
section 402 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
A blending or treatment operation
means any sewage sludge or wastewater
treatment device or system. regardless of
ownership (including Federal facilities),
used in the storage, treatment, recycling,
and reclamation of domestic sewage,
including land dedicated for the
disposal of sewage sludge. For purposes
of this form, such devices or systems
include blending or treatment
operations that derive material from
sewage sludge but do not generate
sewage sludge.
A surface disposal site is an area of
land that contains one or more active
sewage sludge units.
An active sewage sludge unit is land
on which only sewage sludge is placed
for final disposal. This does not include
land on which sewage sludge is either
stored or treated. Land does not include
waters of the United States, as defined
in 40 CFR 122.2.
A sewage sludge incinerator is an
enclosed device in which only sewage
sludge and awdliary fuel are fired.
2. Applicant information.
a. If someone other than the facility
contact person is submitting this
application, provide the name of that
person’s organization.
b. Provide the complete mailing
address of the applicant’s organization.
c. Provide the name and work
telephone number of a person who is
thoroughly familiar with the operation
of the facility and with the facts
reported in this application, and who
can be contacted by the permitting
authority if necessary.
d. Indicate whether this applicant is
the owner or operator (or both) of the
facility. If it is neither, describe the
relationship of the applicant to the
facility.
e. Indicate whether you want
correspondence regarding this
application directed to the applicant or
to the facility address provided in
question 1.
3. Sewage Sludge Amount. List, on a
dry weight basis, the total dry metric
tons of sewage sludge per latest 365-day
period handled at this facility.
Dry weight basis means calculated on
the basis of having been dried at 105
degrees C until reaching a constant
weight (i.e.. essentially 100 percent
solids content).
a. The amount generated Is. for
purposes of this application, the amount
of sewage sludge generated during the
treatment of domestic sewage at the
facility.
b. The amount received from off site
Is any additional amount of sewage
sludge handled at your facility that Is
not generated during the treatment of
domestic sewage at your facility.
c. The amount treated or blended on
site is the amount of sewage sludge
generated on site, plus the amount
received from off site, that undergoes
treatment on site. Treatment is the
preparation of sewage sludge for final
use or disposal. Treatment, for purposes
of this form, incIude the following:
• Thickening and stabilization:
• Processing (e.g.. composting) for
purposes of pathogen reduction and
vector attraction reduction; and
• Blending with a bulking agent or
with sewage sludge from another
facility.
Treatment does not include storage of
sewage sludge.
d. The amount sold or given away in
a bag or other container for application
to the land is the amount placed in a bag
or other container at your facility.
An other container Is either an open
or closed receptacle, including but not
limited to, a bucket, box, carton,
vehicle, or trailer with a load capacity
of one metric ton or less.
e. The amount of bulk sewage sludge
shipped off site for treatment or
blending is the amount of sewage sludge
that is shipped to another facility In
bulk form (i.e.. not in a bag or other
container), where the other Facility
derives a material from the sewage
sludge (I.e., it is a “person who.
prepares”).
This question does not cover sewage
sludge sent directly to a land
application site, surface disposal site,
municipal solid waste landfill, or
sewage sludge incinerator.
f. The amount applied to the land in
bulk form is the amount of bulk sewage
sludge from your facility that is sent
directly to a land application site from
your facility. It does not cover sewage
sludge placed in a bag or other
container, nor does it cover sewage
sludge shipped off site for treatment or
for sale or give.away in a bag or other
container.
g. The amount placed on a surface
disposal site is the amount of sewage
sludge from your facility that is placed
on a surface disposal site, regardless of
whether you own or operate the surface
disposal site.
h. The amount fired in a sewage
sludge incinerator Is the amount of
sewage sludge from your facility that is
fired in a sewage sludge incinerator.
regardless of whether you own or
operate the sewage sludge incinerator.
i. The amount sent to a municipal
solid waste landfill (MSWLF) is the
amount of sewage sludge from your
facility that is sent directly to a MSWLF.
which is a discrete area of land or an
excavation that receives household
waste and other solid wastes.
j. The amount used or disposed by
another practice is the amount of
sewage sludge generated on site or
received from off site that is not covered
in Questions 3.d-3.i above.
4. Pollutant Concentrations. Provide
available data on the concentrations of
the listed pollutants in the sewage
sludge from this facility. If
concentration data are available for
pollutants not on this list, provide those
data as well. Provide up to three data
points taken at least one month apart
during the last two years. If data from
the last two years are unavailable,
provide the most recent data.
Express pollutant concentrations as
dry weight concentrations.
You may use a separate attachment in
addition to. or instead of, the table
provided.
You need not perform additional
pollutant monitoring to comply with
this requirement: rather, only available
data are requested.
Calculations on a diy weight basis are
based on sewage sludge having been
dried at 105 degrees Celsius until
reaching a constant weight (i.e.,
essentially 100 percent solids content).
The Part 503 sewage sludge use or
disposal regulation requires the use of
Test Method SW—848 (in “Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste. Physical!
Chemical Methods,” Second and Third
Editions) to analyze samples of sewage
sludge for compliance with Part 503.
SW—846 is recommended, but not
required. for purposes of providing
sewage sludge quality information in
the permit application.
5. Treatment Provided at Your
Facility. Provide the following
information regarding sewage sludge
treatment on site. This question does
not request information on sewage
sludge treatment at an off.site use or -
dIsposaIacil!t ’.
a. Indicate the class of pathogen
reduction (Class A or Class B) that is
achieved at your facility. You may select
“neither or unknown” only if sewage
sludge is placed on an active sewage
sludge unit that is covered with soil or
other material at the end of each
operating day, sent to another facility
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
62647
for additional treatment, find in a
sewage sludge incinerator, or placed on
municipal solid waste landfill unit.
Iptions for meeting Class A pathogen
iction are listed at § 503.32(a).
,,tions for meeting Class B pathogen
reduction are listed at § 503.32(b).
b. Provide a written description of any
treatment processes used to reduce
pathogens in sewage sludge, including
an indication of how the treatment
fulfills one of the options for meeting
Class A or Class B pathogen reduction.
You may attach existing documentation
(e.g.. technical or process specifications)
to meet this requirement
c. Indicate whether any of the vector
attraction reduction options in
§ 503.33(b) (lXli) are met before
sewage sludge leaves the facility.
Options 1—8 are typically met at the
point where sewage sludge is generated
or where a material is derived from
sewage sludge, and Options 9—11 are
typically met at the point of use or
disposal.
You may select “none or unknown”
only in the following cases:
• I! sewage sludge is fired in a sewage
sludge incinerator or
• If sewage sludge is placed on a
municipal solid waste landfill unit.
Landapplication: Sewage sludge
applied to agricultural land, a forest, a
blic contact site, or a reclamation site
;t meet one of the vector attraction
uction options 1—10. which are
aefined at § 503.33(b) (1)—(10),
respectively. Sewage sludge applied to a
lawn or home garden, or placed in a bag
or other container for sale or give-away
for application to the land, must meet
any of options 1—8. defined at
§ 503.33(b) (1)—(8). respectively.
Surface disposal: Sewage sludge
placed on an active sewage sludge unit
must meet one of vector attraction
reduction options 1—11. which are
defined at § 503.33(b) (1)—(11).
respectively.
d. Provide a written description of
any treatment processes used to reduce
vector attraction characteristics of
sewage sludge, including an indication
of how the treatment fulfills one of
options i—il for vector attraction
reduction. You may attach existing
documentation (e.g.. technical or
process specifications) to meet this
requirement.
6. Sewage Sludge Sent to Other
Facilities. If sewage sludge from your
facility is sent to an off-site facility for
treatment, distribution, use, or disposal,
provide the information requested
,low for each receiving facility. If
gage sludge Is sent to more than one
site facility, attach additional pages
necessary.
For purposes of this form, an off-site
facility is a facility or site that Is located
on land physically separate from the
land used In connection with your
facility. “Off site” may include facilities
or sites that you own if they are not
located on the same property or on
adjacent property.
a. Provide the facility’s official or
legal name. Do not use a colloquial
name.
b. Provide the name, title, and work
telephone number of a person who is
thoroughly familiar with the operation
of the facility receiving the sewage
sludge, and who can be contacted by the
permitting authority if necessary.
c, Provide the complete mailing
address at the off-site facility where
correspondence should be sent.
d. Indicate which activities the
receiving facility performs on the
sewage sludge from your facility.
7. Use and Disposal Sites. U sewage
sludge is sent directly from your f9cility
to a use or disposal site (i.e., It is not
sent to another facility), provide the
following Information for each such site
(attach additional pages if necessary):
a. Provide the site name and/or
number. The name and/or number is
any designation commonly used to refer
to the site. If the site has been
previously designated in another
permit, use that designation.
b. Provide the name, title, and work
telephone number of a person who Is
thoroughly familiar with the operation
of the use or disposal site, and who can
be contacted by the permitting authority
if necessary.
c. Answer either question I or
question 2.
1. Provide the physical location (street
address) of the site. If the site lacks a
street address or route number, provide
the most accurate alternative geographic
Information (e.g., township and range,
section or quarter section number.
nearby highway intersection).
2. Provide the latitude and longitude
of the center of the site. If a map was
used to obtain latitude and longitude.
provide map datum (e.g.. NAD 27. NAD
83) and map scale (e.g.. 1:24000.
1:100000).
d. The site type is the intended end
use of the land. Applicable sewage
sludge use and disposal standards. and
thus permit conditions, differ according
to type of site.
Agricultural land Is land on which a
food crop, a feed crop, or a fiber crop
Is grown. This includes range land.
which Is open land with indigenous
vegetation, and pasture, which Is land
on which animals feed directly on crops
such as grasses. grain stubble, or stover.
Forest Is a tract of land thick with
trees and underbrush.
A public contact site is land with a
high potential for contact by the public.
Public contact sites include public
parks, ball fields, cemeteries, plant
nurseries, turf farms, and golf courses.
A reclamation site is land that has
been drastically disturbed by strip
mining, fires, construction. etc. As part
of the reclamation process. sewage
sludge is applied for its nutrient and
soil conditioning properties to help
stabilize and revegetate the land.
For purposes olthls form, a lawn or
home garden is privately-owned land on
which crops or other vegetation are
grown for private, non-commercial use
and on which use by the general public
does not occur.
A surface disposal site Is an area of
land that contains one or more active
sewage sludge units. An active sewage
sludge unit is land on which only
sewage sludge is placed for final
disposal.
A sewage sludge jncinerotor is an
enclosed device in which sewage sludge
and auxiliary fuel are fired.
A municipal solid waste landfill is a
discrete area of land or an excavation
that receives household waste and other
solid wastes.
8. Certification. All permit
applications must be signed and
certified.
An application submitted by a
municipality, State, Federal, or other ’
public agency must be signed by either
a principal executive officer or ranking
elected official. A principal executive
officer of a Federal agency includes: (1)
The chief executive officer of the
agency, or (2) a senior executive officer
having responsibility for the overall
operations of a principal geographic
unit of the agency (e.g.. Regional
Administrators of EPA).
An application submitted by a
corporation must be signed by a
responsible corporate officer. A
responsible corporate officer means: (1)
A president, secretary, treasurer, or vice
president In charge of a principal
business function, or any other person
who performs similar policy- or
decision-making functions: or (2) the
manager of manufacturing, production,
or operating facilities employing more
than 250 persons or having gross annual
sales or expenditures exceeding $25
million (in second quarter 1980 dollars).
if authority to sign documents has been
assigned or delegated to the manager in
accordance with corporate procedures.
An application submitted by a
partnership or sole proprietorship must
be signed by a general partner or the
proprietor, respectively.
-------
62648 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6. 1995 / Proposed Rules
Part 2 Permit Application Information as well as “sludge-only” facilities that sections of Pail 2 cover your facility’s
Part 2 of this form pertains to facilities are applying for site-specific pollutant sewage sludge use or disposal practices.
that are submitting a full permit limits. Table 1, below. summanzes which
application at this time. This includes Review items 1—5 of the Application sections cover which activities.
facilities applying for an NPDES permit Overview section to determine which
TA&E 1 .—GUIDEUNES FOR COMPlETiNG PART 2
ActivityQes) performed
A
B
C
D
E
Generates sewage sludge or derives matedal from sewage sludge
That meets ceiling concentrations in Table 1 of 40 CFR 503.13.
pollutant concentrations in Table 301 §503.13. Class A patho-
gen requirements in § 503.32. and one of the eight vector attiac-
lion reduction options in §503.33 (b) (1H8) ...... ........
That is sold or given away ui bag or other container for application
to the land ....
That is shipped off site for treatment or blending ...
That is applied to the land in bulk form
That us placed on a surface disposal site
That us fired in a sewage sludge manerator
Thatussenttoamtmcpa lsol idwaste landfill..... -
Applies bulk sewage sludge to land
Owns or operates a surface disposal site ..._.. ........ ..... ..,..
Fires sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incinerator ...... .......
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
(B.I—8.3)
V (BA)
V (B.5)
V (B.6)
V (B.7)
V (B.8)
V (B.9)
V(B.10)
‘
.
V
V
.
V
Section A: Generci Information
All applicants must complete Section
A. which requests general information
about the facility.
A.1. Facility information.
a. Provide the facility’s official or
legal name. Do not use a colloquial
name.
b. Provide the complete mailing
address of the office where
correspondence should be sent. This
may differ from the facility location
given in Question i.d.
c. Provide the name, title, and work
telephone number of a person who is
thoroughly familiar with the operation
of the facility and with the facts
reported in this application, and who
can be contacted by the permitting
authority if necessary.
d. Provide the physical location
(street address) of the facility. If the
facility lacks a street address or route
number, provide the most accurate
alternative geographic information (e.g..
township and range. section or quarter
section number, nearby highway
intersection).
e. Provide the latitude and longitude
of the facility. This information is
required by LiWs Locational Data
Policy. If a map was used to obtain
latitude and longitude. provide map’
datum (e.g.. NAD 27. NAD 83) and map
scale (e.g., 1:24000. 1:100000).
L Indicate whether the facility is a
Class I sludge management facility. A
Class I sludge management facility is
eithen
• Any POTW required to have an
approved pretreatment program under
40 FR 403.8(a), induding any P01W
located in a State assuming local
pretreatment program responsibilities
pursuant to 40 CFR 403.10(e)); or
. Any treatment works treating
domestic sewage. as defined in 40 CFR
122.2. classified as a Class I sludge
management facility by the EPA
Regional Administrator, or. in the case
of approved State programs. the
Regional Administrator in conjunction
with the State Director, because of the
potential for Its sewage sludge use or
disposal practices to adversely affect
public health and the environment.
If your facility is a Class I sludge
management facility, you must perform
a toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure (TCLP) on this facility’s
sewage sludge. Submit the results (pass
or fail) of all TCLP tests you have
performed during the past five years
that you have not already submitted to
the permitting authority.
g. Provide the facility’s design
Influent flow rate. “Design influent flow
rate” means the average flow the
treatment works was designed to treat
Enter the design influent flow rate In
million gallons per day (mgd). to two
decimal places (e.g.. 3.12 mgd translates
to three million one hundred twenty
thousand gallons per day).
h. For all areas served by the
treatment works (municipalities and
unincorporated service areas). enter the
best estimate of the actual population
served at the time of application. If
another treatment works discharges into
this treatment works, provide on a
separate attachment the name of the
other treatment works and the actual
population it serves (it is not necessary
to list the communities served by the
other treatment works).
I. indicate the type of facility.
A publicly owned treatment works
(POTW) is any device or system used in
the treatment (including recycling and
reclamation) of municipal sewage or
industrial wastes of a liquid nature
which is owned by a State or
municipality. This definition incluc .
sewers, pipes. or other conveyances
only if they convey wastowater to a
P01W providing treatment.
A privately owned treatment works is
any device or system which is (a) used
to treat wastes from any facility whose
operator is not the operator of the
treatment works and (b) not a P01W or
federally owned treatment works.
A federally owned treatment works is
a facility that is owned and operated by
a department, agency, or instrumentality
of the Federal government that treats
wastewater, a majority of which is
domestic sewage, prior to discharge in
accordance with a permit issued under
section 402 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
A blending or treatment operation
means any sewage sludge or wastewater
treatment device or system, regardless of
ownership (including Federal facilities),
used in the storage, treatment. recyclizrg.
and reclamation of domestic sewage.
including land dedicated for the
disposal of sewage sludge. For purposes
of this form, such devices or systems
include blending or treatment
operations that derive material from
sewage sludge but do not generate
sewage sludge.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 / Wednesday. December 6. 1995 I Proposed Rules
62649
A surface disposal site is an area of
land that contains one or more active
ewage sludge units. An active sewage
udge unit is land on which only
wage sludge is placed for final
disposal. This does not include land on
which sewage sludge is either stored or
treated. Land does not include waters of
the United States, as defined in 40 FR
122.2.
A sewage sludge incinerator is an
enclosed device in which sewage sludge
.and auxiliary fuel are fired.
A.2. Applicant Information.
a. If someone other than the facility
contact person is submitting this
application, provide the name of that
person’s organization.
b. Provide the complete mailing
address of the applicant’s organization.
c. Provide the name and work
telephone number of a person who is
thoroughly familiar with the operation
of the facility and with the facts
reported in this application, and who
can be contacted by the permitting
authority if necessary.
d. Indicate whether this applicant is
the owner or operator (or both) of the
facility. If it is neither, describe the
relationship of the applicant to the
facility.
a. Indicate whether you want
correspondence regarding this
application directed to the applicant or
o the facility address provided In
question 1.
A.3. Permit Information. Provide the
facility’s NPDES permit number, if any.
Also provide the number and type of
any relevant Federal, State, or local
environmental permits or construction
approvals received or applied for,
including but not limited to permits
issued under any of the following
programs:
• Hazardous Waste Management
program under RCR.A:
• UIC program under SDWA;
• Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program under the
Clean Air Act;
• Nonattainment program under the
Clean Air Act;
• National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
preconstruction approval under the
Clean Air Act;
• Oceaii dumping permits under the
Marine Protection, Research. and
Sanctuaries Act; or
• Dredge or fill permits under Section
404 of CWA.
£4. Federal Indian Reservation.
Identify any generation, treatment,
storage, application to land, or disposal
of sewage sludge that occurs on a
Federal Indian Reservation.
A.5. Topographic Map. Provide a
topographic map or maps (or other
appropriate map(s) if a topographic map
is unavailable) that shows the items
identified below, including the areas
one mile beyond the property
boundaries of the facility.
a. Location of all sewage sludge
management facilities, including land
application sites and locations where
sewage sludge is generated, treated, or
disposed:
b. Location of all water bodies within
one mile beyond the facility’s property
boundaries: and
c. Location of all wells used for
drinking water listed in public records
or otherwise known to you within ¼
mile of the facility property boundaries.
On each map. Include the map scale.
a meridian arrow showing north, and
latitude and longitude at the nearest
whole second. Use a 7½-minute series
map published by the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS). which may be obtained
through the USGS Earth Science
Information Center (ESIC) listed below.
If a 7½-minute series map has not been
published for your facility site, then you
may use a 15-minute series map from
the U.S. Geological Survey. If neither a
7½-minute nor 15-minute series map
has been published for your facility site,
use a plat map or other appropriate
map, including all the requested
Information; in this case, briefly
describe land uses in the map area (e.g..
residential, commercial). If you have
previously prepared a map that includes
these three items, that map may be
submitted to fulfill this requirement if it
is still accurate.
Maps may be purchased at local
dealers (listed in your local yellow
pages) or purchased over the counter at
the following USGS Earth Science
Information Centers (ESIC):
Anchorage-ESIC. 4230 University Dr.. Rm.
101. Anchorage, AK 99508—4664.
(907)786—7011
Lakewood-ESIC, Box 25046. Bldg. 25. Rin.
1813. Denver Federal Center, MS 504,
Denver. Co 80225—0046. (303)236—5829
Lakewood Open Files-ESIC. Box 25286. Bldg.
810, Denver Federal Center. Denver. CO
Menlo Pak.ESIC. Bldg. 3. Rzn. 3128. MS 532.
345 Middlefield Rd., Menlo Park. CA
94025—3591. (415)329—4309
Reston-ESIC. 507 NatIonal Center, Reston.
VA 22092. (703)648—6045
Rolla-ESIC, 1400 Independence Rd., MS 231,
Rolla. MO 65401—2602. (314)341—0851
Salt Lake CIty-ESIC. 2222 West 2300 South,
Salt Lake City, UT 84119. (801)975—3742
SIoux Falls.ESIC. EROS Data Center. Sioux
Falls. SD 57198-0001(605)594—6151
Spokane-ESIC. U.S. Post Office Bldg.. Ram.
13S. 904 W. RIverside Ave., Spokane. WA
99201— 1088. (509)353—2524
Stennis Space Center-ESIC. Bldg. 3101,
Steams Space Center, MS 39529. (601)688-
3541
Washington. D.C.-ESIC. U.S. Dept. of Interior.
1849 C St.. NW. Ram. 2650. Washington.
D.C. 20240, (202)208—4047
All maps should be either on paper or
other material appropriate for
reproduction. If possible, all sheets
should be approximately letter size with
margins suitable for filing and binding.
As few sheets as necessary should be
used to clearly show what is involved.
Each sheet should be labeled with your
facility’s name, permit number, location
(city, county, or town), date of drawing.
end designation of the number of sheets
of each diagram as “page _______ of
A.6. Line Drawing. Attach to this form
a line drawing, simple flow diagram, or
narrative description that identifies all
sewage sludge processes employed
during the permit term, including the
information requested on the
application form.
£7. Contractor Information.
If a contractor carries out any
operational or maintenance aspects
associated with this facility, provide the
name, mailing address, and telephone of
each such contractor. Also provide a
description of the activities performed
by the contractor. Attach additional
pages if necessary.
£8. Pollutant Concentrations.
• All facilities must complete Section
A.8.a. (Part 503 Metals, Nutrients, and
percent solids).
• Complete Section A.8.b. if this
facility Is a Class I sludge management
facility.
A Class I sludge management facility
is either
—Any POTW required to have an
approved pretreatment program under
40 t.FR 403.8(a), including any POTW
located in a State assuming local
pretreatment program responsibilities
pursuant to 40 CFR 403.10(e)): or
—Any treatment works treating
domestic sewage. as defined in 40
CFR 122.2. classified as a Class I
sludge management facility by the
EPA Regional Administrator, or, in
the case of approved State programs,
the Regional Administrator in
conjunction with the State Director.
because of the potential for its sewage
sludge use or disposal practices to
adversely affect public health and the
environment.
Provide pollutant concentration data
as follows:
• Submit data for each of the
pollutants listed in the appropriate
section.
• For the listed pollutants. data may
not be mote than two years old. If
existing data are not available for a
pollutant, you must obtain and analyze
at least one sample for that pollutant.
-------
62650 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6 . 1995 I Proposed Rules
• In addition, if you have any
available concentration data for
pollutants not listed In the section you
are completing, provide those data as
well. If data for such additional
pollutants are not available from the last
two years. provide the most recent data.
• Express pollutant concentrations as
dry weight concentrations.
• You may use a separate attachment
In addition to or instead of the table
provided.
Calculations on a dr, weight basis are
based on sewage sludge having been
dried at 105 degrees Celsius until
reaching a constant weight (I.e..
essentially 100 percent solids content).
The Part 503 sewage sludge use or
disposal regulation requires the use of
Test Method SW—846 (In ‘Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste. Physlcal/
Chemical Methods.” Second and Third
Editions) to analyze samples of sewage
sludge for compliance with Part 503.
SW—846 Is recommended, but not
required. for purposes of providing
sewage sludge quality information In
the permit application.
A.9. Certification. All permit
applications must be signed and
certified. Also indicate in the boxes
provided, which sections of Form 2S
you are submitting with this
application.
An application submitted by a
municipality. State. Federal. or other
public agency must be signed by either
a principal executive officer or ____
elected official. A prindpal executive
officer of a Federal agency includes: (1)
The chief executive officer of the
agency, or (2) a senior executive officer
having responsibility for the overall
operations of a principal geographic
unit of the agency (e.g., Regional
Administrators of EPA).
An application submitted by a
corporation must be signed by a
responsible corporate officer. A
responsible corporate officer means: (1)
A president. seoretary, treasurer, or vice
president In charge of a principal
business function, or any other person
who performs i,nIl r policy- or
dedslon.m k4ng functions; or (2) the
mfiIa gar of manufacturing, production.
or operating facilities employing more
than 250 persons or having gross annual
sales or expenditures exceeding $25
million (In second quarter 1980 dollars).
if authority to sign documents has been
assigned or delegated to the manager In
accordance with corporate procedures.
An application submitted by a
partnership or sole proprietorship must
be signed by a general partner or the
proprietor, respectively.
Section B: Generation of Sewage Sludge
or Preparation of a Material Derived
From Sewage Sludge
Complete this section If you are a
“person who prepares sewage sludge.”
A person who prepares sewage sludge is
a person who generates sewage sludge
during the treatment of domestic sewage
in a treatment works or who derives a
material from sewage sludge. This
section. therefore, pertains to any POTW
or other treatment works that generates
sewage sludge, as well as to any facility
that derives a material from sewage
sludge (e.g.. It composts sewage sludge
or blends sewage sludge with another
material). Simply distributing sewage
sludge or placing it in a bag or other
container for sale or give-away for
application to the land is not considered
“deriving a material” from sewage
sludge (because It does not change
sludge quality), and thus a facility that
only distributes or bags a sewage sludge
would not be automatically required to
provide the information in this section.
8.1. Amount Generated On Site.
Provide the total dry metric tons per
365-day period of sewage sludge that Is
generated at your facility. Report only
the amount of sewage sludge that is
generated during treatment of domestic
sewage In a treatment works, not the
amount of material that Is derived from
sewage sludge.
B.2. Amount Received from Off Site.
Provide the following Information If
your facility receives any sewage sludge
from an off-site facility for further
treatment (Including blending), use, or
disposal at your facility. If your facility
receives sewage sludge from more than
one off-site facility, provide this
Information separately for each such
facility. Attach additional pages as
necessary.
For purposes of this form, an off-site
facility is a facility or site that is located
on land physically separate from the
land used in connection with your
facility. “Off site” may include facilities
or sites that you own If they are not
located on the same property or on
adjacent property.
a. Provide the official or legal name of
the off-site facility. Do not use a
colloquial name.
b. Provide the name and work
telephone number of a person who Is
thoroughly familiar with the operation
of the off-site facility and with the facts
reported In this section, and who can be
contacted by the permitting authority if
necessary.
C. Provide the complete mailing
address at the off-site facility where
correspondence should be sent.
d. Provide the physical location
(street address) of the off-site facility. If
the facility lacks a street address or
route number, provide the most accurate
alternative geographic information (e’
township and range, section or quaz
section number, nearby highway
intersection).
The off-site facility providing the
sewage sludge is, by definition, also a
“person who prepares sewage sludge”.
Both you and the off-site facility are
required to apply for a permit and are
required to ensure that applicable Part
503 requirements are met.
e. Provide the total dry metric tons
per 365-day period received from the
off-site facility.
L Describe any treatment processes
occurring at the off-site facility,
including blending activities and
treatment to reduce pathogens or vector
attraction characteristics. “Treatment”
does not include dewatering.
8.3. Treatment Provided at Your
Facility. Provide the following
Information regarding sewage sludge
treatment at your facility. This question
does not request information on sewage
sludge treatment at an off-site use or
disposal facility.
a. Indicate the class of pathogen
reduction (Class A or Class B) that is
achieved before sewage sludge leaves
the facility. You may select “neither or
unknown” only if sewage sludge is
placed on an active sewage sludge uj ’
that Is covered with soil o other
material at the end of each operating
day, sent to another facility for
additional treatment, fired In a sewage
sludge incinerator, or placed on a
municipal solid waste landfill unit.
Options for meeting Class A pathogen
reduction are listed at § 503.32(a).
Options for meeting Class B pathogen
reduction are listedat § 503.32(b).
b. Provide a written description of any
treatment processes used to reduce
pathogens in sewage sludge, including
an Indication of how the treatment
fialfilk one of the options for meeting
Class A or Class B pathogen reduction.
You may attach existing documentation
(e.g., technical or process specifications)
to meet this requirement.
c. Indicate whether any of vector
attraction reduction options 1-8 are met
befOre sewage sludge leaves the facility.
Options 1-8 are published at § 503.33(b)
(1H8), and typically am met at the
point of sewage sludge generation.
Options 9, 10, and 11 (published at
§503.33(b) (9)—(ii), respectively) are
also available, but are typically met at
the point of use or disposal and are
covered elsewhere In this form.
You may select “none or unknown”
only in the following cases:
• If sewage sludge is sent to anothe.
facility for additional treatment,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6. 1995 / Proposed Rules
62651
• If option 9 (injection below land
surface) or option 10 (incorporation into
soil within six hours) is met at a land
pplication site:
• If option 9 (injection below land
surface), option 10 (incorporation into
soil within six hours), or option 11
(daily cover) is met at an active sewage
sludge unit at a surface disposal site;
• If sewage sludge is fired in a sewage
sludge incinerator or
• If sewage sludge is placed on a
municipal solid waste landfill unit.
Lan6applicaUon: Sewage sludge
applied to agitcultural land, a forest, a
public contact site, or a rnrbimation site
must meet one of the vector attraction
reduction options 1—10, which are
defined at § 503.33(b) (1)—(10),
respectively. Sewage sludge applied to a
lawn or home garden. or placed in a bag
or other container for sale or give-away
for application to the land, must meet
any of options 1—8, defined at
§ 503.33(b) (1)—(8), respectively.
Swface disposal: Sewage sludge
placed on an active sewage sludge unit
must meet one of vector attraction
reduction options 1—11, which are
defined at §503.33(b) (1)—(11),
respectively.
d. Provide a written description of
any treatment processes used to reduce
vector attraction characteristics of
sewage sludge. including an indication
of how the treatment fulfills one of
options 1—8 for vector attraction
reduction. You may attach existing
documentation (e.g., technical or
process specifications) to meet this
requirement.
e. Provide a written description of any
other treatment or blending activities
not described in B.3.b or B.3.d above.
“Other treatment” does not include
dewatering or placement of sewage
sludge in a bag or other container for
sale or give-away for application to
land. You may attach existing
documentation (e.g.. technical or
process specifications) to meet this
requirement.
8.4. Preparation of Sewage Sludge
Meeting Ceiling Concentrations,
Pollutant Concentrations, Class A
Pathogen Requirements, and One of
Vector Attraction Reduction Options 1—
a.
Complete this section if sewage
sludge from this facility meets oil of the
following criteria:
• The ceiling concentrations in Table
1 of 503.13(b)(1) and the pollutant
concentrations In Table 3 of
§ 503.13(b)(3);
• The Class A pathogen reduction
requirements in § 503.32(a); and
• One of the vector attraction
reduction options in § 503.33 1b) (1)—(8).
Sewage sludge meeting all of these
criteria is exempt from the general
requirements of § 503.12 and the
management practices of § 503.14. and
thus fewer permitting and permit
application requirements typically
pertain to facilities generating such
sludge. For this reason, if you are
eligible to complete Section B.4. you
may skip Sections B.5—B.7 unless
specifically required to complete any of
them by the permitting authority.
a. Provide the total dry metric tons
per 365-day period of sewage sludge
that is applied to the land and that
meets the Table 1 ceiling
concentrations, the Table 3 pollutant
concentrations, Class A pathogen
requirements, and one of vector
attraction reduction options 1—8.
b. Indicate whether sewage sludge
that meets the Table I ceiling
concentrations, the Table 3 pollutant
concentrations, Class A pathogen
requirements, and one of vector
attraction reduction options 1—8 Is
placed In bags or other containers at
your facility.
Sewage sludge placed in a bag or
other container must meet the Table 1
ceiling concentrations, the Class A
pathogen requirements. one of vector
attraction reduction options 1—8, and
either the Table 3 pollutant
concentrations or the annual poLlutant
loading rates (APLRs) in Table 4 of
§ 503.13. This question does not pertain
to sewage sludge meeting APLRs.
An other container is either an open
or closed receptacle, including but not
limited to a bucket, a box, a carton, and
a vehicle or trailer with a load capacity
of one metric ton or less.
B.5. Sale or Give-Away in a Bag or
Other Container for Application to the
Land. Complete this section if sewage
sludge from this facility is sold or given
away in a bag or other container for
application to the land. Skip this
section, however, for any sewage sludge
you reported in Section 8.4 (i.e.. sludge
meeting Table I ceiling concentrations.
Table 3 pollutant concentrations. Class
A pathogen requirements, and one of
vector attraction reduction options 1—8).
A bag or other container includes an
open or closed receptacle such as a
bucket, box, carton, or vehicle or trailer
with a load capacity of one metric ton
or less.
a. Provide the total dry metric tons
per 365-day period placed in bags or
other containers for sale or give-away.
b. Attach with this application a copy
of any label or Information sheet that
accompanies the product being sold or
given away. When sewagrsludge is
placed in a bag or other container for
sale or give-away for application to the
land, either a label must be affixed to
the bag or other container. or an
Information sheet must be provided to
the person receiving the sewage sludge.
The label or information sheet must
contain the following information:
• The name and address of the person
who prepared the sewage sludge that is
sold or given away in a bag or other
container for application to the land:
• A statement that application of the
sewage sludge to the land is prohibited
except in accordance with the
Instructions on the label or Information
sheet; and
• The annual whole sludge
application rate for the sewage sludge
that does not cause any of the annual
pollutant loading rates in Table 4 of
§ 503.13 to be exceeded.
8.6. Shipment-Off Site for Treatment
or Blending. Complete this section if
you provide sewage sludge to another
facility, and that facility provides
treatment or blending (i.e., it derives a
material from sewage sludge).
Skip this section. however, for any
sewage sludge that is:
• Covered in Section B.4 (I.e., It meets
the Table I ceiling concentrations, the
Table 3 pollutant concentrations, Class
A pathogen reduction requirements. and
one of vector attraction reduction
options 1—8);
• Covered in Section B.5 (I.e., it is
placed in a bag or other container at
your facility); or
• Sent directly from your facility to a
land application site or surface disposal
site.
If you provide sewage sludge to more
than one facility that provides treatment
or blending, complete Section B.6 for
each such facility. Attach additional
pages as necessary.
a. Provide the official or legal name of
the facility receiving the sewage sludge.
Do not use a colloquial name.
b. Provide the name, title, and work
telephone number of a person who is
thoroughly familiar with the operation
of the facility receiving the sewage
sludge. and who can be contacted by the
permitting authority if necessary.
c. Provide the complete mailing
address of the receiving facility where
correspondence should be sent.
d. Provide the total dry metric tons
per 365-day period your facility sends to
the receiving facility. Do not include
sewage sludge that other facilities send
to the receiving facility.
e. Indicate whether the facility
receiving the sewage sludge provides
additional treatment to reduce
pathogens in sewage sludge from your
facility. Also indicate whether Class A
or Class B pathogen reduction is
-------
62652 - Federal Register I VoL 60. No. 234 I Wednesday. December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules
achieved befoto the sewage sludge
leaves the receivin facility.
Options for nreeung Class A pathogen
reduction are listed at § 503.32(a).
Options for meeting Class B pathogen
iedmclion are listed at § 503.32 (b ).
Prwide a written description of any
tieatnimi processes used at the
i ivrng f lity to reduce pathogens rn
sludge. including an indication
of how rho treatment fulfills one of the
oplitum !or meeting Class A or Class B
pathogen reduction. You may attach
ev”tingdoaimentation (e.g.. terhni wi
or pzo specifications) to meet this
reTt whether the facility
r.in ixzg the sewage sludge provides
additional treatment to reduce vector
attiadian characteristics of the sewage
sludge frmn your facility. Also indicate
whether any of vector attraction
reduction optIons 1-8 are met before the
sewage sludge leaves the receiving
facility. Options 1-8 are typically met at
the point of sewage sludge generation or
treatment additional options are
avuitnhl tart these axe typically met at
the point of use or disposal.
!ond application: Sewage sludge
applied to agricultural land, forest, a
public contact site, or a rwl mat1on site
must meet one of vector attraction
reduction options 1—10. whIch are
defined at § 503.33(b) (1)—(10),
respciulvely. Sewage sludge applied to a
lawn or home garden. or placed In a bag
or other container for sale or give-away
for application to the land, must meet
one of vector attraction reduction
options 1—8. defined at § 503.33(b) (1)—
(8). respectIvely.
Surface disposal: Sewage sludge
placed on an active sewage sludge unit
meet one of vector attraction reduction
options 1-11, which are defined at
§ 503.33(b) (l)—{11). respectively.
Provide a written description of any
treatment proc ses used at the
receiving facility to reduce vector
attraction reduction characteristics of
sewage sludge, Including an indication
of how the treatment fulfill ’ one of
optIons 1—8 for vector attraction
reduction. You may attach existing
documentation (e.g.. technical or
process specifications) to meet this
requirement
g. Provide a written description of any
other treatment or blending not
described in ae.e or B.e.f above. This
does not Include dewatering of sewage
sludge. You may attach existing
documentation (e.g., technical or
process specifications) to meet this
requirement.
i i. U you generate sewage sludge or
derive a material from sewage sludge.
and you provide that sewage sludge to
another person who derives a material
from the sewage sludge. § 503.12(g)
requires you to provide that person with
notice and necessary information to
comply with land apolication
requirements of Part 503. If you
answered “yes’ to B.6.e, B.6.f, or B.8.g.
the receiving facility is a “person who
prepares sewage sludge” and you must
provide, with this application, a copy of
any notice and other information you
provide to the receiving fhcility.
i. lithe receiving facility places
sewage sludge from your facility in a
bag or other container for sale or give-
away for application to the land,
provide a copy of all labels or notices
that ‘npany the product being sold
or given away.
A bog or other container includes an
open or closed receptacle such as a
bucket. box, carton, or vehicle or trailer
with a load capacity of one metric ton
or less.
When sewage sludge is placed in a
bag or othór container for sale or give-
away for application to the land, either
a label must be affixed to the bag or
other container, or an information sheet
must be provided to the person
receiving the sewage sludge. The label
or information sheet must contain the
following information:
• The name and address of the person
who prepared the sewage sludge that Is
sold or given away in a bag or other
container for application to the land;
• A statement that application of the
sewage sludge to the land is prohibited
except in accordance with the
Instructions on the label or information
sheet and
• The annual whole sludge
application rate for the sewage sludge
that does not cause any of the annual
pollutant loading rates in Table 4 of
§ 503.13 to be exceeded.
B.7. Land Application of Bulk Sewage
Sludge. Complete this section if bulk
sewage sludge from your facility is
sprayed or spread onto the land surface.
injected below the land surface, or
Incorporated into the soil in order to
condition the soil or fertilize crops or
vegetation grown in the soil.
Skip this section, however, for sewage
sludge that Is:
• Covered in Section B.4 (I.e., it meets
tie ceiling concentrations in Table I of
§ 503.13(b)(1). the pollutant
concentrations in Table 3 of
§503.13(b113). the Class A pathogen
induction requirements in § 503.32(a),
and one of the vector attraction
reduction options In §503.33(b)(1).(8));
1
• Covered in Section B.5 (i.e.. it Is
placed in a bag or other container for
sale or give-away for application to the
land): or
• Covered in Section B.6 (i.e., it is
sent to another facility for treatment or
for blending).
Bulk sewage sludge is defined as
sewage sludge that is not sold or given
away in a bag or other container for
application to the land. (A bag or other
container includes an open or closed
receptacle such as a bucket, box, carton,
or vehicle or trailer with a load capacity
of one metric ton or less.)
If you complete this section (which
requests summary information for all
bulk sewage sludge that is applied to the
land), also complete Section C for each
land application site.
a. Provide the total dry metric tons
per 365.day period your facility sends to
all land application sites. Do not
include sewage sludge sent to land
application sites by other facilities.
b. Indicate whether all land
application sites are identified in
Section C of this application. If you are
not identifying all sites in Section C.
provide a copy of the land application
plan with this permit application.
(Information is collected in Section C
for each land application site that has
been Identified at the time of permit
application.)
Current regulations require you to
submit a land application plan at the
time of permit application if you intend
to apply sewage sludge to land
application sites that have not been
identified at the time of permit
application. (This requirement does not
apply if your sewage sludge meets the
ceiling concentrations in Table I of
§ 503.13(b)(I), the pollutant
concentrations in Table 3 of
§ 503.13(b)(3). the Class A pathogen
reduction requirements in § 503.3 2(a).
and one of the vector attraction
reduction options in § 503.33(b) (1)—(8).)
At a minimum, the land application
plan must:
• Describe the geographical area
covered by the plan;
• Identify site selection cnteria;
• Describe how sites will be managed:
• Provide for advance notice to the
permitting authority of specific land
application sites and a reasonable time
for the permitting authority to object
prior to the sewage sludge application;
and
• Provide for advance public notice
as required by State and local law, but
in all cases require notice to land
owners and occupants adjacent to or
abutting the proposed land application
sites.
The permit writer will work with you
to develop additional details of the land
application plan on a case-by.case basis.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 / Wednesday. December 6. 1995 / Proposed Rules
62653
Such details include site selection
criteria (site slope, run-on and run-off
control. etc.) and site management
guidelines (sludge application rates.
access controls. etc.).
The land application plan is an
alternative to either (1) requiring
identification of. and permit conditions
for, all potential land application sites at
the time of permit issuance, or (2)
requiring an individual permit action
for each approval of a land application
site. A land application plan provides
for public notice when the land
application plan is developed as part of
the permit, and it discusses how the
public will be notified on a case-by-case
basis. For this reason, public notice of
the permit will be required to reach
areas within the territorial scope of the
land application plan. The public notice
must indicate that the permit Includes
a land application plan. and the fact
sheet must briefly describe the contents
of the land application plan.
c. If any land application sites are
located in States other than the State
where you generate the bulk sewage
sludge or derive the material from
sewage sludge, describe how the
permitting authority will be notified in
the States where the land application
sites are located.
The pennitting authority Is either
• The State. In cases where the State
has an EPA-approved sewage sludge
management program: or
• The EPA Region, in cases where a
State sewage sludge management
program has not yet been approved.
The notice must include the
following:
• The physical location, by either
street address oj latitude and longitude,
of each land application site:
• The approximate time period bulk
sewage sludge will be applied to the
site:
• The name, address, and telephone
number of the person who prepares the
bulk sewage sludge and the NPDES
permit number (if applicable) of their
facility; and
• The name, address, and telephone
number of the person who will apply
the bulk sewage sludge and the NPDES
permit number (if applicable) for their
facility.
Ba. Surface DisposaL Complete this
section If sewage sludge from your
facility is placed on a surface disposal
site. If you own or operate a surface
disposal site, also complete Section D.
a. Provide the total dry metric tons
per 365-day period that Is sent from
your facility to all surface disposal sites.
Do not include sewage sludge sent to
surface disposal sites by other facilities.
A surface disposal site is an area of
land that contains one or snore active
sewage sludge units. An active sewage
sludge wilt is a sewage sludge unit that
has not closed. A sewage sludge unit is
land on which only sewage sludge is
placed for final disposal, excluding land
on which sewage sludge is either stored
or treated.
b. If sewage sludge from your facility
is placed on any surface disposal sites
that you do not own or operate,
complete B.8.c—B.8.f for each surface
disposal site that you do not own or
operate. If you send sewage sludge to
more than one surface disposal site that
you do not own or operate. attach
additional pages as necessary.
C. PTOVId1 the official or legal name
(or number) of the site receiving the
sewage sludge. Do not use a colloquial
name.
d. Provide the name, title, and work
telephone number of a person who Is
thoroughly familiar with the operation
of the surface disposal site, and who can
be contacted by the permitting authority
if necessary.
Indicate whether the facility contact is
the site owner, the site operator, or both.
For purposes of this form, the owner is
the person that owns a part of or the
entire facility. The operator is the
person responsible for the overall
operation of the facility, and may be
different from the owner. In general. the
operator Is the person responsible for
the daily functioning of the facility,
including sewage sludge use or
disposal.
e. Provide the complete mailing
address for the surface disposal site
where correspondence should be sent.
f. Provide the total dry metric tons of
sewage sludge per 365-day period from
your facility placed on this surface
disposal site. Do not include sewage
sludge sent to this surface disposal site
by other facilities.
B.9. Incineration. Complete this
section ii sewage sludge from your
facility is fired in a sewage sludge
incinerator. If you own or operate a
sewage sludge incinerator, also
complete Section E.
a. Provide the total dry metric tons of
sewage sludge per 365-day period that
is sent from your facility to all sewage
sludge incinerators. Do net include
sewage sludge sent to sewage sludge
incinerators by other facilities.
A sewage sludge Incinerator is an
enclosed device in which sewage sludge
and auidllasy fuel are fired. Auxiliwy
fuel Is fuel used to augment the fuel
value of sewage sludge, including
natural gas, fuel oil, coal, gas generated
during anaerobic digestion of sewage
sludge, and municipal solid waste (not
to exceed 30 percent of the dry weight
of sewage sludge and auxiliary fuel
together).
b. If you do not own or operate a
sewage sludge incinerator in which
sewage sludge from your facility is fixed,
complete B.9.c—B.9.f each sewage sludge
incinerator that you do not own or
operate.
c. Provide the official or legal name or
number of the sewage sludge
incinerator, Do not use a colloquial
name.
d. Provide the name, title, and work
telephone number of a person who is
thoroughly famili& with the operation
of the sewage sludge incinerator, and
who om be contacted by the permitting
authority If necessary.
Indicate whether the Incinerator
contact is the owner, the operator, or
both. For purposes of this form, the
owner is the person that owns a part of
or the entire facility. The operator is the
person responsible for the overall
operation of the facility, and may be
different from the owner. In general, the
operator is the person responsible for
the daily functioning of the facility.
including sewage sludge use or
disposal.
e. Provide the complete mailing
address at the sewage sludge Incinerator
where correspondence should be sent.
f. Provide the total dry metric tons of
sewage sludge per 365-day period from
your facility fired in this sewage sludge
incinerator. Do not include sewage
sludge sent to this incinerator by other
facilities.
B.10. Disposal on a Municipal Solid
Waste LandfilL
Complete this section 11 sewage
sludge from your facility is placed on a
municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF)
unit.
Provide the information in this
section once for each MSWLF on which
sewage sludge from your facility is
placed. If sewage sludge from your
facility is placed on more than one
MSWLF. attach additional pages as
necessary.
The Part 503 sewage sludge use or
disposal regulation does not impose
additional requirements on sewage
sludge that is sent to a MSWLF, but they
cross-reference existing criteria for
MSWLFs at 40 R Part 258. Therefore,
if sewage sludge from your facility is
placed on a MSWLF unit, your permit
must contain conditions regulating such
disposal.
A MSWLF unit is a discrete area of
land or an excavation that receives
household waste, and that Is not a land
application unit, surface Impoundment.
injection well, or waste pile, as those
terms are defined under § 257.2. A
-------
62654 Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 234 1 Wednesday. December 6. 1995 / Proposed Rules
MSWLF unit also may receive other
types of RC A subtitle D wastes, such
as commercial solid waste,
nonhR Pdous sludge, small quantity
generator waste and industrial solid
waste. Such a landfill may be publicly
or privately owned.
a. Provide the official or legal name of
the MSWLF. Do not use a colloquial
name.
b. Provide the name, title, and work
telephone number of a person who is
thoroughly familiar with the operation
of the MSWLF, and who can be
contacted by the permitting authority if
necessary.
c. Provide the complete mailing
address (or the MSWLF where
correspondence should be sent, This
may differ from the MSWLF location
given below.
d. Provide the physical location
(street address) of the MSWLF. If the
MSWLF lacks a street address or route
number, provide the most accurate
alternative geographic information (e.g..
township and range. section or quarter
section number. nearby highway
intersection).
e. Provide the total dry metric tons
per 365-day period that Is sent from
your facility o this MSWLF. Do not
include sewage sludge sent to the
MSWLF by other facilities,
f. Provide the number and type of any
relevant Federal, State, or local
environmental permits or construction
approvals received or applied for by the
MSWLF.
g. Submit information to determine
whether the sewage sludge placed on
this MSWLF meets applicable
requirements for disposal of sewage
sludge on a MSWLF.
Sewage sludge placed on a MSWLF
must meet requirements in Fart 258
concerning the quality of materials
placed on a MSWLF unit. In partlcular
Placement on a MSWLF of bulk or
noncontainerized liquid waste, as
determined using the Paint Filter
Liquids Test (Method 0095 j
Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes.
Physical/Chemical Methods—EPA Pub.
No. SW-846.). is prohibited.
• Placement on a MSWLF of a
regulated hazardous waste, as defined In
40 R 261.3, is prohibited.
• If sewage sludge Is used as a cover
at a MSWLF, the MSWLF owner!
operator must demonstrate that the
sewage sludge is suitable for use as a
cover, and that it provides sufficient
control of disease vectors, fires, odors,
blowing litter, and scavenging and does
not present a threat to human health
and the environment.
h. Indicate whether the MSWLF
complies with criteria set forth in 40
CFR Part 258.
Part 258 specifies minimum Federal
criteria for MSWLFs, including landfills
that accept sewage sludge along with
household waste. Among these
requirements are location restrictions,
facility design and operating criteria,
ground-water monitoring, and corrective
action, closure and post.closuse care.
along with financial assurance
requirements. In contrast to Pert 503,
Part 258 controls sewage sludge placed
on MSWI.Fs through a facility design
and management practice approach. In
Part 503, EPA has adopted the Part 258
criteria as the appropriate standard for
sewage sludge disposed of with
municipal waste. EPA concluded that if
sewage sludge Is disposed of in a
MSWLF complying with Part 258
criteria, public health and the
environment are protected.
Note that the POTW is legally
responsible for knowing whether a
MSWLF is in compliance with Part 258
and may be liable if it sends its sludge
to an MSWLF that is not in compliance
with Part 258.
Section C: Land Application of Bulk
Sewage Sludge
Complete this section if you
completed Section B.? (Land
Application of Bulk Sewage Sludge).
Unless the permitting authority
specifically requires you to complete
this section, you may skip this section
for sewage sludge that is covered in any
of the following sections of this -
application:
• Section B.4 (the sewage sludge
meets the ceiling concentrations in
Table I of § 503.13(b)(1), the pollutant
concentrations in Table 3 of
§503.13(b)(3). the Class A pathogen
reduction requirements in § 503.32(a),
and one of the vector attraction
reduction options in § 503.33(b) (1)—(8)).
Such sewage sludges are exempt from
the general requirements and
management practices of Part 503 when
they are land applied (unless the
permitting authority requires
otherwise), and thus the site
Information in Section C is not required
for permitting.
• Section B.5 (the sewage sludge is
placed in a bag or other container for
sale or give-away for application to the
land). Section C does not cover the sale
or give-away of sewage sludge in a bag
or other container for application to the
land because EPA typically will not
control the users of such sewage sludge
(typically. home gardeners or other
small-scale users). or the land on which
the sludge is applied, through the
generator’s permit.
• Section B.6 (the sewage sludge is
sent to another facility for treatment or
for blending). Section C does not apply
to a generator that sends sewage sludge
to another facility for treatment or for
blending, because the Part 503
requirements addressed by Section C
will largely be the responsibility of the
receiving facility.
Bulk sewage sludge is defined as
sewage sludge that is not sold or given
away in a bag or other container for
application to the land. (A bag or other
container Includes an open or closed
receptacle such as a bucket, box, carton,
or vehicle or trailer with a load capacity
of one metric ton or less.)
Provide the information in this
section for each land application site
that has been identified at the time of
permit application. Attach additional
pages as necessary. In cases where the
sewage sludge is applied to numerous
sites with similar characteristics, you
may combine the information for several
sites under a single response (the name
and address of each site must still be
provided, however).
C i. Identification of Land
Application Site.
a. Provide the site name or number.
The name or number is any designation
commonly used to refer to the site. If tht
site has been previously designated in
another permit, use that designation.
b. Answer either question I or
question 2.
1. Provide the physical location (street
address) of the land application site. If
the site lacks a street address or route
number, provide the most accurate
alternative geographic information (e.g..
township and range. section or quarter
section number, nearby highway
intersection).
2. Provide the latitude and longitude
of the facility. If a map was used to
obtain latitude and longitude, provide
map datum (e.g., NAD 27, NAD 83) and
map scale (e.g.. 1:24000, 1:100000).
C2. Owner Information.
a. Indicate whether you are the owner
of this land application site. For
purposes of this form, the owner is the
person that owns a part of or the entire
land application site.
b. If you are not the owner of this land
application site, provide the name.
telephone number, and complete
mailing address for the site owner.
C.3. Applier Information.
a. Indicate whether you are the person
who applies sewage sludge to this land
application site.
b. if you are not the person who
applies sewage sludge to this land
application site, provide the name,
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 234 I Wednesday. December 6. 1995 / Proposed Rules
62655
ephone number, and mailing address
the person who applies sewage
Ige to this land application site.
4. Site Type. The “type of land
d 1 Jplicatlon site” is the intended end use
of the land. Part 503 regulates bulk
sewage sludge applied to agricultural
land, forest, public contact sites.
reclamation sites, and lawns and home
gardens. Proper identification of the
type of land application site is
important because the applicable Part
503 requIrements—and thus permit
conditions—differ according to the type
of site.
Agricultural land is land on which a
food crop, a feed crop, or a fiber crop
is grown. This includes range land,
which Is open land with Indigenous
vegetation, and pasture. which Is land
on which animals feed directly on crops
such as grasses. grain stubble, or stover.
Forest is a tract of land thick with
trees and underbrush.
A public contact site is land with a
high potential for contact by the public.
Public contact sites include public
parks. ball fields, cemeteries, plant
nurseries, turf farms, and golf courses.
A reclamation site is land that has
been drastically disturbed by strip
mining, fixes, construction. etc. As part
f the reclamation process, sewage
udge Is applied for Its nutrient and
l conditioning properties to help
.abilize and revegetate the land.
C.5. Crop or Other Vegetation Grown
on Site.
a. Identify the type of cop or other
vegetation grown on this land
application site. If the crop or vegetation
to be grown on the site is not yet known,
or is likely to change in an
unforesesable manner during the life of
the permit, you may so indicate instead
of providing the type of crop or other
vegetation.
b. Provide the nitrogen requirement
for the crop or other vegetation listed in
C.5.a. Information on the nitrogen
content of vegetation grown on the site
may be obtained from local agricultural
extension services, a local Farm
Advisor’s Office, or published souzves.
C.6. Vector Attraction Reduction.
Identify any vector attraction reduction
requirements that are met at the land
application site.
a. Specifically, indicate whether
vector attraction reduction option 9
(Injection below soil surface) or option
10 (incorporatIon Into soil within 6
hours) Is met.
Bulk sewage sludge that Is applied to
the land may meet any of vector
ttractlon reduction options 1—10. as
lentifled in § 50333(b) (1)—(10).
respectively. Options 1-8 were covered
In Section B.3, which requests
information on sewage sludge treatment
at the facility generating the sewage
sludge. If you met any of options 1—8
(e.g.. processes to reduce volatile solids.
reduce specific oxygen uptake rate, raise
pH, raise percent solids), you should
have identified that option in Question
B.3.c and described how the option is
met in Question B.3.d.
By contrast, vector attraction
reduction options 9 and 10 are typically
met at the land application site. Options
9 and 10 are not available for sewage
sludge applied to a lawn or home
garden.
b. Provide a written description of
how the vector attraction reduction is
met
C.7. Ground-Water Monitoring. If any
- ground-water monitoring data are
available for this land application site.
submit the following with the
application:
• Available ground-water monitoring
data; and
• A written description of the well
locations. apprmdmate depth to ground
water, and the ground-water monitoring
‘procedures used to obtain these data
(you may attach existing decumentatlon
to fulfill this requirement).
For purposes of this form, ground-
water monitoring means the Installation
and periodic sampling and analysis of
small-diameter wells screened In the
aquifer below the base of the deepest
active sewage sludge unit.
C.8. Cumulative Loadings and
Remaining Allotments.
Complete Section C.8. only for sewage
sludge that is applied to the site subject
to cumulative pollutant loading rates
(CPLRs). Sewage sludge applied to the
site on or before July 20, 1993. is not
subject to this section.
a. Indicate whether you have
contacted the permitting authority in
the State where the bulk sewage sludge
will be applied to ascertain whether
bulk sewage sludge subject to CPLRs has
been applied to the site since July 20.
1993.
If applicable, provide the name of the
permitting authority and the name and
phone number of the contact person at
the permitting authgrity.
You may not apply bulk sewage
sludge subject to CPLRs to the site until
you have contacted the permitting
authority in that State.
The permitting authority is either
• The State. In cases where the State
has an EPA-approved sewage sludge
management program: or
• The EPA Region, in cases where a
State sewage sludge management
program has not yet been approved.
If you answered yes to C.8.a, continue
on to C.8.b. If you answered no. skip the
rest of Section Ca.
b. Indicate whether, based on your
investigation in Section C.8.a or other
information, sewage sludge subject to
CPLRS has been applied to the site since
July 20, 1993.
U you answered yes to C.8.b, continue
on to C.8.c. If you answered no, skip the
rest of Section C.8.
c. Provide the following Information
for every other facility that sends (or has
sent since July 20, 1993) bulk sewage
sludge subject to CPLRs to this site:
• Theofficial or legal name of the
facility. Do not use a colloquial name.
• If available, the name, title, and
work telephone number of a person who
Is thoroughly familiar with the facility,
and who can be contacted by the
permitting authority If necessary.
• The complete mailing address at the
facility where correspondence should be
sent.
Section D: Surface Disposal
Complete this section If you own or
operate a surface disposal site and are
required to submit a full permit
application (i.e., Part 2 of Form 2S) at
this time.
A sewage sludge surface disposal site
is, by definition, a treatment works
treating domestic sewage, and the
owner/operator of the site Is required to
apply for a permit. You are required to
submit Part 2 of this form (Including
Section D) If:
• The surface disposal site is already
covered by an NPDES permit (e.g.. a
POTW’s NPDES permit);
• You are requesting site-specific
pollutant limits for an active sewage
sludge unit at the surface disposal site;
or
• You have been required by the
permitting authority to submit a full
permit application at this time.
If none of these criteria apply, you
should submit Part 1 instead of Part 2
(and may therefore skip Section 0). Part
I requests a limited amount of
information from so-called “sludge-
only” facilities (facilities without a
currently-effective NPDES permit) that
are not requesting site-specific permit
limits and are not otherwise required to
submit a full permit application at this
time. Part 1 is intended to allow the
permitting authority to Identify these
facilities, track sewage sludge use and
disposal, and establish priorities for
permitting.
D.1. Information on Active Sewage
Sludge Units. Complete Sections Dl.
through D5 for each active sewage
sludge unit you own or operate. If you
own or operate more than one active
-------
62856 Federal Register / Vol. 60 , No.234 / Wednesday, December 6. 1995., Proposed Rules
sewage sludge unit, attach additional
pages as necessary.
An active sewage sludge unit is an
area of land on which only sewage
sludge is placed for final disposal.
Sewage sludge units include, but are not
limited to. natural topographical
depressions. man.made excavations, or
diked areas designed to dispose of (not
treat) sewage sludge. Sewage sludge
units do not include areas where sewage
sludge is generated as a result of
Ongoing treatment (e.g.. polishing
ponds) or land on which sewage sludge
is placed for either treatment or storage.
Sewage sludge may be stored on an area
of land for a period equal to or less than
two years. If sewage sludge remains on
an area of land for greater than two
years, the person who prepares the
sewage sludge must develop a rationale
for why the tand should not be
considered an active sewage sludge
unit.
Most requirements for surface
disposal of sewage sludge under Part
503 pertain to individual active sewage
sludge units at a surface disposal site.
Permit conditions for your facility may
be developed on a unit.by.unit basis, or
may be developed for the entire surface
disposal site if all units are sufficiently
similar.
a. Provide the name or number of the
active sewage sludge unit. The name or
number is any designation commonly
usedtorefertotheunit.Iftheactjve
sewage sludge unit has been previously
designated in another permit, use that
designation.
b. Provide the physical location (street
address) of the active sewage sludge
unit. If the active sewage sludge unit
lacks a street address or route number,
provide the most accurate alternative
geographic information (e.g., township
and range. section or quarter section
number, nearby highway intersection).
c. Provide the total dry metric tons
per 365-day period placed on the active
sewage sludge unit. The amount of
sewage sludge placed on an active
sewage sludge unit determines the
frequency of monitoring for sewage
sludge placed on the active sewage
sludge unit.
d. Provide the total number of dry
metric tons of sewage sludge placed on
the active sewage sludge unit over the
life of the unit to date.
e. Indicate whether the active sewage
sludge unit has a liner. A liner is
defined as soil or synthetic material
with a maximum hydraulic conductivity
(permeability) of 1 x iO cm/sec.
If the active sewage sludge unit has a
liner, describe the material from which
the liner is constructed and specify the
design hydraulic conductivity of that
material.
f. Indicate whether the active sewage
sludge unit has a l chate collection
system. A leachate collection system is
a system or device installed
immediately above a liner that is
designed, constructed, maintained, and
operated to collect and remove leachate
from a sewage sludge unit.
If the active sewage sludge unit has a
leachate collection system, describe
how the system is designed and
operated. Also describe the method
used for leachate disposal, such as
discharge to surface water (provide all
applicable permit numbers) or disposal
at a hazardous waste treatment, storage,
or disposal facility (provide Federal,
State. and local permit numbers for this
facility).
g. if you answered yes to both D.1.e
and D.i.f. pollutant limits do not apply
to the active sewage sludge unit.
If the boundary of the active sewage
sludge unit without a liner aM leachate
collection system is less than 150 meters
from the property line of the surface
disposal site, provide the act ual
distance in meters.
When the boundary of an active
sewage sludge unit without a liner and
leachate collection system is less than
150 meters from the property line of the
surface disposal site, the pollutant
limits for the unit are determined
according to the actual distance, as
indicated in Table 2 of § 503.23.
h. Provide the remaining capacity of
the active sewage sludge unit, in dry
metric tons, and the anticipated closure
date of the active sewage sludge unit, if
known. Attach to the application a copy
of any closure plan that has been
developed for the active sewage sludge
unit.
0.2. Sewage Sludge from Other
Facilities. If sewage sludge is sent to this
active sewage sludge unit by any
facilities other than your facility,
complete this section for each such
facility. If sewage sludge from more than
one facility other than your facility Is
placed on this active sewage sludge
unit, attach additional pages as
necessary.
a. Provide the official or legal name of
the facility providing the sewage sludge.
Do not use a colloquial name.
b. Provide the name, title, and work
telephone uuiber of a person who is
thoroughly familiar with the operation
of the facility that is providing the
sewage sludge. and who can be
contacted by the permitting authority if
necessary.
c. Provide the complete mailing
address of the facility providing the
sewage sludge.
d. Indicate the class of pathogen
reduction that Is achieved before sewage
sludge leaves the facility that genera t .’e
the sewage sludge.
Options for meeting Class A path -
reduction are listed at § 503.32(a).
Options for meeting Class B pathogen
reduction are listed at § 503.32(b).
a. Provide a written description of any
treatment processes used at the facility
providing the sewage sludge to reduce
pathogens in the sewage sludge.
including, where applicable, how the
treatment fulfills one of the options fqr
meeting Class A or Class B pathogen
reduction. You may attach existing
documentation (e.g., technical or
process specifications) to meet this
requirement.
1. Indicate whether any of the vector
attraction reduction options 1—8, (at
§ 503.33(b) (1).-(8). respectively) are met
at the facility providing the sewage
sludge. Options 1—8 are typically met at
the point of sewage sludge generation.
Additional options are available, but
these are typically met at the point of
disposal.
You may select “none or unknown”
only if option 9 (injection below land
surface), option 10 (incorporation into
soil within six hours), or option ii
(daily cover) is met at the point of
disposal at this active sewage sludge
unit (see Section D.3.a).
g. Provide a written description of
treatment processes used at the facility
providing the sewage sludge to reduce
vector attraction reduction
characteristics of sewage sludge.
including an indication of how the
treatment fulfills one of options 1—8 for
vector attraction reduction. You may
attach existing documentation (e.g..
technical or process specifications) to
meet this requirement.
h. Provide a written description of
any other treatment processes at the
lacility providing the sewage sludge that
are not described In D.2.d—D.2.g. You
may attach existing documentation (e.g..
technical or process specifications) to
meet this requirement.
D.3. Vector Attraction Raduction.
Complete this section for each active
sewage sludge unit.
a. Indicate whether any of vector
attraction reduction options 9—11 (at
§ 503.33(b) (9)—(11). respectively) are
met when the sewage sludge is placed
on this active sewage sludge unit.
Sewage sludge placed on an active
sewage sludge unit must meet one of
vector attraction reduction options
defined at § 503.33(b) (i)—(11). Options
1—8 are typically met at the point of
sewage sludge generation (see Questic
0.2.0. Options 9-il are typically met
the point of disposal.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. ! Jo. 234 i Wednescia. December 6. 1995 ‘ Proposed Ru :e
62657
b. Provide a written description of any
treatment processes used at the active
ewage sludge unit to reduce vector
itraction reduction characteristics of
sewage sludge. including an indication
of how the treatment fulfills one of
options 9—11 for vector attraction
reduction. You may attach existing
documentation (e.g.. technical or
process specifications) to meet this
requirement.
D.4. Ground-Water Monitoring.
Placement of sewage sludge on an
active sewage sludge unit must not
contaminate an aquifer. Compliance
must be demonstrated through either:
(1) the results of a ground-water
monitoring program developed by a
qualified ground-water scientist, or (2)
certification by a qualified ground-water
scientist that contamination has not
occurred.
Contaminate an aquifer means to
introduce a substance that causes the
maximum contaminant level (MCL) for
nitrate in 40 CFR 141i1 to be exceeded
in ground water, or that causes the
existing concentration of nitrate in
ground water to increase when the
existing concentration of nitrate in the
ground water exceeds the MCI., for
nitrate in 40 CFR 141.11.
The MCL for nitrate is 10 milligrams!
1 lter.
This section solicits existing ground-
water monitoring data and other
documentation to indicate the potential
for contamination of an aquifer at the
active sewage sludge unit, and the
capability of the owner/operator of the
surface disposal site to demonstrate that
contamination has not occurred.
a. If ground-water monitoring is
conducted for this active sewage sludge
unit, provide the following:
• Available ground-water monitoring
data; and -
• A written description of the well
locations, approximate depth to ground
water, and the ground-water monitoring
procedures used to obtain these data
(you may attach existing documentation
to fulfill this requirement).
For purposes of this application.
ground-water monitoring means the
installation and periodic sampling and
analysis of small-diameter wells in the
aquifer below the base of the deepest
active sewage sludge unit.
b. U a ground-water monitoring
program has been prepared for this
active sewage sludge unit (regardless of
whether ground-water monitoring Is
currently conducted), submit a copy of
the program with this permit
pplicatlon. The program should
include the number, depth, and location
of all wells; the frequency and method
of sampling: and the parameters for
which the ground water is tested.
c. If you have obtained a certification
from a qualified ground-water scientist
that contamination of the aquifer below
the active sewage sludge unit has not
occurred, submit a copy of the
certification with this permit
application.
A qualified ground-water scientist is
an individual with a baccalaureate or
post-graduate degree in the natural
sciences or engineering who has
sufficient training and experience in
ground-water hydrology and related
fields, as may be demonstrated by State
registration. professional certification.
or completion of accredited university
programs. to make sound professional
judgments regarding ground-water
monitoring, pollutant fate and transport.
and corrective action.
D.5. Site-Specific Limits. Indicate
whether you are seeking site-specific
pollutant limits in your permit for the
sewage sludge placed on this active
sewage sludge unit.
After August 18. 1993, you are
allowed to seek site-specific pollutant
limits only for good cause, and must do
so within 180 days of becoming aware
that good cause exists. If you request
site-specific pollutant limits with this
permit application, you are required to
submit information supporting the
request, Including a demonstration that
existing values for site parameters
specified by the permitting authority
differ from the values for those
parameters used to develop the
pollutant limits in Table 1 of § 503.23.
You must also submit follow-up
information at the request of the
permitting authority.
lithe permitting authority determines
that site-specific pollutant limits are
appropriate, the permitting authority
may specify site-specific limits in the
permit as long as the existing
concentrations of the pollutants in the
sewage sludge are not exceeded.
Section 5: Incineration
Complete this section if you own or
operate a sewage sludge incinerator. U
you own or operate more than one
sewage sludge incinerator, complete this
section for each incinerator unit. Attach
additional pages as necessary.
A sewage sludge incinerator is, by -
definition, a treatment works treating
domestic sewage, and the owner!
operator of a sewage sludge incinerator
Is required to submit a full permit
application (I.e.. Part 2 of Form 2S).
L.a. Incinerator Identification.
a. Provide the name or number of the
sewage sludge incinerator unit. The
name or number is any designation
commonly used to refer to the unit. If
the unit has been previously designated
in anotherpermit. use that designation.
b. Provide the physical location (street
address) of the sewage sludge
incinerator, If the incinerator lacks a
street address or route number, provide
the most accurate alternative geographic
information (e.g., township and range.
section or quarter section number,
nearby highway intersection).
E.2. Amount Fired. Provide the total
dry metric tons of sewage sludge (dry
weight basis) fired in the sewage sludge
incinerator unit per 365-day period.
E.3. Beryllium NESHAP.
The firing of sewage sludge in a
sewage sludge incinerator must not
violate the National Emission Standard
(NESHAP) for beryllium as established
In Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 61. The
beryllium NESHAP only applies.
however, to sewage sludge incinerators
firing “beryllium-contAining waste.”
The beryllium NESHAP is 10 grams of
beryllium in the exit gas over a 24-hour
period, unless the incinerator owner!
operator has been approved to meet a
30-day average ambient concentration
limit on beryllium in the vicinity of the
sewage sludge Incinerator of 0.01 iig/m 3 .
Complete this section to demonstrate
compliance with the beryllium
NESHAP.
a. Indicate whether sewage sludge
fired in this sewage sludge incinerator is
- berylllum-containin waste. Beryllium-
containing waste Is material
contaminated with beryllium or
beryllium compounds used or generated
during any process or operation
performed by one of several sources.
Submit information, test data, and a
description of measures taken that
demonstrate whether the sewage sludge
fired in this sewage sludge incinerator is
beryllium-contAining waste, and will
continue to remain as such.
b. If the sewage sludge fired in this
sewage sludge incinerator is beryllium-
contAining waste, submit a complete
report of the latest beryllium emission
rate testing, as well as docwnentation of
ongoing incinerator operating
parameters indicating that the NESMAP
emission rate limit for beryllium has
been and will continue to be met,
E.4. Mercury NESHAP.
The firing of sewage sludge in a
sewage sludge incinerator must not
violate the NESHAP for mercury as
established in Subpart E of 40 CFR Part
61. Complete this section to
demonstrate complifinre with the
mercury NESHAP.
a. Indicate whether stack testing or
sewage sludge sampling is being used to
demonstrate compliance with the
mercury NESHAP. If stack testing Is
-------
62658 Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6. 1995 / Proposed Rules
used, complete E.4.b. below. If sewage
sludge sampling is used, complete E.4.c.
below.
b. Stack testing option. Stack testing
must be conducted using Method lOlA
In 40 CPR Part 61, Appendix B
(“Determination of Particulate and
Gaseous Mercury Emissions from
Sewage Sludge Incinerators”). The total
quantity of mercury emitted Into the
atmosphere from all Incinerators at a
site must not exceed 3200 grams over a
24-hourperiod.
If stack testing is used, submit the
following with this application:
A complete report of stack testing
and documentation of ongoing
incinerator operating parameters
Indicating that the incinerator has and
will continue to meet the mercury
NESHAP emission rate limit.
Copies of mercury emission rate
tests for the two most recent years in
which testing was conducted.
c. Sampling option. Sewage sludge
must be sampled and analyzed using
Method 105 in 40 CFR Part 61
Appendix B (“Determination of Mercury
in Wastewater Treatment Plant Sewage
Sludge”), and the mercury emissions
calculated using the following equation
must not exceed 3200 grams over a 24-
hour period:
= ( M)x(Q)x(F ( ) )
.I
where:
E 5 =mercury emissions. g/day
M=mercury concentration in sewage
sludge on a dry solids basis, In
Q=eud i e, in kg/day
F 1 . • weight fraction of solids in the
collected sewage sludge after
mixing .
If sewage sludge sampling is used,
submit a complete report of sewage
sludge sampling and documentation of
ongoing Incinerator operating
parameters indicating that the
‘ ‘ator has and will continue to
meet the mercury NESHAP misaion
rate limit.
E.5. Dispersion Factor. -
a. Provide the dispersion factor, In
micrograms/cubic meter/gram/second.
for the sewage sludge heithi ator.
The dispersion factor is the ratio of
the Increase In the ground.level ambient
air cn,i n . tration for a pollutant at or
beyond the property line of the site
where the sewage sludge Incinerator is
located to the mass emission rate for the
pollutant from the Ine 4 n ,ator stack. The
dispersion factor is calculated
individually by each applicant based on
the results of an air dispersion model
specified by the permitting authority.
b. Provide the name and type of the
air dispersion model used to obtain the
dispersion factor.
Approved air dispersion models are
listed In EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality
Models and EPA’s Support Center for
Regulatory Air Models (SCRAM)
bulletin board. Unless a pro-existing
modeling effort has been used to
calculate dispersion factor (and the
results have been approved by EPA),
you should work closely with the
permitting authority to prepare a
modeling protocol.
c. Submit a copy of the modeling
results and supporting documentation
with this application.
E.6. Control Efficiency.
a. Provide the control efficiency, in
hundredths, for arsenic, cadmium.
chromium, lead, and nickel at this
sewage sludge Incinerator.
Control efficiency is the mass of a
pollutant in the sewage sludge fed to an
Incinerator minus the mass of that
pollutant In the exit gas from the
Inc inerator stack, divided by the mass of
the pollutant in the sewage sludge fed
to the incinerator.
b. Submit a copy of the results of
performance testing and supporting
documentation, including testing dates.
Control efficiency must be determined
by a performance test, the protocol for
which must be approved by EPA.
E.7. Risk Specific Concentration for
Chromfum. The risk specific
concentration (RSC) for arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, and nickel Is used
to calculate pollutant limits for these
metals in the permit. With the exception
of chromium, the RSC for these metals
Is provided In Table 1 of § 503.43. The
RSC for chromium, however. may be
determined l.a two ways: (1) it may be
located in Table 2 of § 503.43 according
to the type of lncinerator or (2) it may
be calculated based on the ratio of
hexavalent chromium to total chromium
In the exhaust stack gas.
a. Provide the RSC to be used In
establishing a permit limit for
chromium, in micrograms per cubic
meter.
b. Specify whether the RSC was:
• Provided in Table 2 of § 503.43; or
• Calculated, using Equation 6 In 40
R 503.43, based on the ratio of
hexavalent chromium to total chromium
In the exhaust stack gas.
c. If the RSC was looked up In Table
2 of § 503.43. Identify which category of
Incinerator type you used to obtain the
RSC.
d. If you calculated the RSC using
EquatIon 6 In 40 CFR 503.43, provide
the decimal fraction of hexavalent
chromium concentration to total
chromium concentration in the stack
exit gas. Also submit the results of
incinerator stack tests for hexavalent
and total chromium concentrations
including date(s) of test.
E.8. Operational Standard for Tota’
Hydrocarbons (THC) or Carbon
Monoxide (CC).
Total hydrocarbons (THC) means the
organic compounds in the exit gas from
a sewage sludge incinerator stack, as
measured using a flame ionization
detection instrument referenced to
propane. Carbon monoxide (CO) can be
monitored instead of THC. The
operational standard for mc or CO
requires that the THC or CO
concentration in the exit gas be
corrected for zero percent moisture and
to seven percent oxygen.
a. Provtde the raw value for the THC
or CO concentration in stack emissions,
in parts per million (ppm). The row
value is the concentration measured
directly by the flame ionization
detection instrument
b. Provide the percent of moisture
content in stack gas. This is used to
correct the raw THC or CO
concentration value for zero percent
moisture.
c. Provide percent oxygen
concentration in stack gas (in dry
volume/dry volume). This is used, after
correction of the THC or CO
concentration for zero percent moisti
to correct the THC or CO concentra&.
to seven percent oxygen.
d. Provide the corrected value for the
THC or CO concentration in stack
emissions, in ppm. The co, cted value
Is the raw concentration, corrected for
zero percent moisture and to seven
percent oxygen.
The raw ThC or CO value is first
corrected for zero percent moisture by
multiplying by the following correction
factor (from 40 CFR 503.44):
Correction factor (dimensionless) — 1
(0% moisture) — (l—X)
where Xis the decimal fraction of the
percent moisture in the sewage
sludge Incinerator exit gas In
hundredths.
The dry value is then corrected to
seven percent oxygen using the
correction factor determined according
to the following equation:
Correction factor (dimensionless) 14
(7%moisnrre) ç21-Y)
where Y = percent oxygen concentration
in the sewage sludge incinerator
stack exit gas (dry volume/dry
volume).
e. Submit documentation used to
derive the raw mc or CO
-------
Federal_Register I Vol. 60. No . 234 / Wednesday. December 6. 1995 I !roposed Rules
62659
concentration, moisture content, oxygen
concentration and corrected mc or CO
concentrati on.
E.g. Operating Parameters.
a. Provide the type of sewage sludge
incinerator—i.e.; whether the
incinerator is multiple hearth, fluidlzed
bed, flash drying, electric furnace, or.
other.
b. Provide with the application the
following data on combustion
temperature: temperature data
(including testing date(s)), a description
of temperature measurement and data
recording and handling systems, and a
description of how such combustion
temperature data have been averaged.
The permitting authority Will use
performance test data to specify the
maximum combustion temperature In
the permit as a “never to exceed” value.
Regulated facilities must also install,
calibrate, operate, and maintain an
instrument that measures and records
combustion temperatures continuously.
c. Provide the sewage sludge feed rate
in dry metric tons per day, and Indicate
whether the average doily amount or the
maximum design capacity feed rate was
used. Submit supporting documentation
describing how the feed rate was
calculated.
The average daily amount feed rate is
the average daily amount of sewage
sludge fired in all sewage sludge
incinerators within the property line of
the site where the sewage sludge
Incinerators are located for the number
of days in a 365-day period that each
sewage sludge incinerator operates.
The maximum design capacity feed
rate is the average daily design capacity
for all sewage sludge incinerators within
the property line of the site where the
sewage sludge incinerators are located,
The permitting authority will use the
feed rate you report as the basis for
calculating pollutant limits and will
include It as an enforceable condition In
the permit.
d. Provide the incinerator stack height
(in meters) for each stack, and Indicate
whether actual or creditable stack height
was used.
The actual stack height is the
difference between the elevation at the
top of the stack and the elevation of the
ground at the base of the stack, when
the difference is equal to or less than 65
meters.
The creditable stack height is used if
the difference is greater than 65 meters.
This is determined In accordance with
40 CFR 51.100(11).
e. Submit information documenting
the operating parameters for the air
pollution control device(s) used for this
sewage sludge incinerator.
E.10. Monitoring Equipment. Provide
a detailed list of the equipment in place
to monitor total hydrocarbons or carbon
monoxide, percent oxygen, moisture
content, and combustion temperature.
Monitoring equipment includes, but Is
not limited to, thermocouples, oxygen
continuous emissions monitors, furnace
temperature gauges, sewage sludge and
auxiliary fuel feed rate monitors,
differential pressure detectors, liquid or
gas flow detectors, and air pollution
control devices.
E.11. Air Pollution Control
Equipment Provide a list of the
equipment In place to control emissions
from the sewage sludge Incinerator
stack. Indicate the type and capacity for
each piece of equipment listed.
IFR Dec. 95—28213 FIled 12—5-95: 8:45 aml
coos ei
-------
10—10-95
Vol. 60 No. 195
Tuesday
October 10, 1995
1)Ihh)J)hflhJIhPuIhI))iI)I
A FR SAIC 7IDSCSEP g p
EHSQ L2DR RY MS 3 .32-8
3710 GDODRZD E DR
MCt.EPN VA 22302
SECOND CLASS NEWSPAPER
Po, aOe end Feei Paid
U.S. Goven ment Pnnwig Of c.
(ISSN X97-1320)
United States
Government
Printing Office
SUPERINTENDENT
OF DOCUI.ENTS
W engtan. DC 2O4 2
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
Pendy p Wg tai. .$3X
-------
The aedft will equal
P ce between the actual net
the °ud projected net revenue.
‘ nted by the following formula:
,pNg;CANR —
Net Revenue-
projected Net Revenue
uacma’ net revenue is less than the
net revenue for the MC
P’ j tjon period, a revenue surcharge
he allocated during the MC
period.
1.1 U the actual net revenue j
ve. the surcharge will be equal to
Investment payment plus
the iinual deficit. represented by the
formuls.•
cPNR and <0; S MW + AD
JACtU&l Net Revenue
p jg projected Net Revenue
1 gp Minimum Investment Payment
• g AnnUSl Deficit
j Utheactualnetrevenu.is
positive, the surcharge will equal the
• 15 ügmum investment payment less the
a:tual net revenue, represented by the
• thliowing formula:
- jlRO:S MW—ANR
(If ANR >MW. S
Where:
ANR - Actual Net Revenue
• PNK = Projected Net Revenue
M W • Minimum Investment Payment -
5-—
piovided. that If the actual net revenue
Is greater than the I,Iini num Investment
• payment. the surcharge will be equal to
3. The maximum MC credit
miloortlon will equal $20 million plus •
the amount of the Pacific C.. and.
Electric Company refund credit applied
to Western power bills for the fiscal..
year. The maximum allocation for a .,,
RACsuzcbargsshallnctaxceed$20 ;
muon.
.4. The MC credit or surcharge shall
be allocated to each CVP comeaercfafr
firm power customer based on the
proportion of the customer’s billed
obligation to W et for CVP
commercial firm cap ty and energy to
the total billed obligati on for all CVP
commercial firm powercustomers for
CVP commercial firm capacity and
energy for the MC calculation period.
5. For purposes of the RAC
calculation, the following terms are
defined:
5.1 Actual Net Revenue—The
Recorded Net Revenue.
5.2 Anz ual Deficit—The amount the
recorded annual expenses, Including
Interest, exceeding recorded annual
revenues.
5.3 Minimum Investment Payment—
The lesser oil percent of the recorded
unpaid Investment balance at the end of
the prior FY that the MC Is being
calculated, or the projected net revenue.
5.4 Projected Net Revenue—The
annual net revenue available for
Investment repayment projected In the
PRS for the rate case during the FY that
the MC is being calculated (see Table
1).
5.5 MC Adjustment Period—The
period January 1 through September 30.
following the MC calculation period
when credits or surcharges will be
applied to the power bills.
5.6 MC Calculation Period—The
last recorded FY (October 1 through
September 30).
5.7 Recorded Net Revenue-The
annual net revenue available for
repayment recorded In the PRS for the
FY that the MC is being calculated.
6. Subject to modification by a
superseding rate schedule, the final
MC will be allocated to the customers
during the period January 1. 1999. to-
September 30, 1999. • -
TABLE 1 . .—PRQJECTED NET REVENUE
AVAILABLE FOR INVESTMENT REPAY-
MENT FOR REVENUE ADJUSTMENT
CL
I
Po od
Octotw 1, 1995-SeØem.
bar 30,1996..
O 1, 1996-Se
bet 30.1997
Octr & 1, 1997-Se
bet 30 .1998.__.
- $11,792,544
4,506 . 910
.
5 ,307j79
For Transformer Lnce s
If delivery Is made at tr= .’ =” - on
voltage but metered on the low-voltage .—
side of the substation, the meter
readings will be increased to
compensate for transformer losses se
provided for In the cormact.
For Power Factoc
The customer will be required tar
maintain a power factor at all points of.
measurement between 95-percent
legging and 95-percent leading. The low
power Factor charge (LPFC) will be
calculated by multiplying the
customer’s maximum monthly demand
by the kVar/kW rate for the customer’s
mean power factor as provided in the
following Table 2:
Power factor
-
0.94
0.93..—-- —
$0.09
0.17
0.24
0.32
0.39
0.48
0.53
0.60
0.66
0.73
0.79
0.86
0.92
0.99
1.05
1.12
1.18
1.25
1.32
1.38
0.92 .
0.91
0.90__ ._.
0.89
0.87 ...... .
0.88 .._
0.85 ...._......._.. .
0.84 .__. . ...._..._
0.83.................. .._...... . ....._.
0.92 —— .
0.81.....,
0.80 -.
0.79_
0.78
—
0J8. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . ....._.
A LPFC will be assessed when a
customer’s power factor is less than 95
percent -
(a) A charge of $2.50 per kVar will be
aesesmed for every kVar required to raise
a customer’s power factor to 95 percent.
Th. calculated power factor used to
determine if a charge will be assessed is
the arithmetic mean of a customer’s
measured monthly average power factor
and their measured onpeak power
factor, rounded to the nearest whole
percent with 0.5 percent or greater
rounded to the next hIgher percent.
(b) The mean power factor will be
calculated at each customer’s point of
delivery. If a customer has multiple
points of delivery, the power factor will
be determined from totalized
Information from the points of delivery.
(4 No credit will be given for
cust ,i r . operating between 95 percent
and 100 percent
(d) Customers that have a monthly
peak demand less than or equal to 50
kW will not be subject to the LPFC.
(e) The Contracting Officer may waive
the LPFC for good cause in whole or in
pert
IFg Dec. 95—25043 FLied 10-6—OS; 8:45 ami
— ‘ coca em-or-s
WRL-UI3-a)..
Dr.N Genital NPDES Permit for
Seabed Processors Within Thre
Ness8cal MIles .1 th PilbIlol Islands,
M..ke General NPOES Permit No. AK—
G52-P000
asmscy: Environmental Protection
Agency. RegIon 1G.
Federal Register I VoL 60, No. 195 / Tuesday. October 10,
52677
TABLE 2.—KVARA
• C I I VTII CII I L FTI I Cl ii IVI
AGENCY
-------
52678
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 195 F Tuesday. October 10, 1995 I Notices
ACTiON: Notice of Draft General NPDES
Permit, and Notice of Finding of No
Significant Impact.
SUMMARY: The Director. Water Division,
EPA Region 10. is proposing to issue a
general National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit no.
AX—G52—P000 for seafood processors
within three nautical miles of the
Pribilof Islands, Alaska. pursuant to the
provisions of the Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq. The proposed
general NPDES permit will authorize
discharges from facilities discharging
through stationary outfalls on St. Paul
and St. George Islands, and from mobile
vessels discharging within the three
nautical mile coastal zone of the Pribilof
Islands. These facilities are engaged In.
the processing of fresh, frozen, canned.
smoked, salted and pickled seafoods.
Discharges authorized by the proposed
permit Include processing wastes,
process thcnnfectants, sanitary
wastewater and other wastewaters,
Including domestic wastewater, cooling
water, boiler water, gray water,
freshwater pressure relief water, -
refrigeration condensate, water used to
transfer seafood to a facility, and live
tank water. The proposed permit wU}• ...
authorize discharges to waters of the
United States In and contiguous to-thai.
State of Alaska, except for receiving
waters excluded from coverage as
protected or adjacent to a designated
“seafood processing center.”-
The proposed general NPD permit
for seafood processors within the
Pribilof Island coastal zone will not
authorize discharges from the
processing of fish mince, paste or meal.
The proposed permit will not authorize
discharges of petroleum hydrocarbons,
toxic pollutants, or other pollutants not.
specified in the permit.
A draft NPDES permit, fact sheet erie.
other documents of the administrative-
record are available upon request
PUBUC NOTICE ISSUANCE DATE: October
10, 1995.
PUBUC NOTICE EXPIRATION DATE. -
November 13, 1995.
PUBLIC COMMENTE: Interested persons -
may submit written couunents on
draft general NPDES permit to the
attention of Florence Carroll at the
address below. All comments should
Include the name, address, and
telephone number of the commenter
and a concise statement of comment and
the relevant facts upon whIch ft. is
based. Comments of either support or
concern which are directed at specifid,
cited permit requirements are -
appreciated. Comments must be
submitted to EPA on or before the -
expiration date of the public notice.
After the expiration date of the public
notice, the Director, Water Division,
EPA Region 10. will make a final
determination with respect to issuance
of the general permit. The tentative
requirements contained In the draft
general permit will become final
conditions if no substantive comments
are received during the public comment
period. The permit is expected to
become effective on January 15. 1996.
Persons wishing to comment on State.
Certification of the proposed general
NPDES permit should submit written
comments within this 30-day comment -
period to the State of ALicki, MJUZkA
Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC), 410 Willoughby
Avenue, SUite 105. Juneau, Alaska
99801—1795. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of Alaska
Water Quality Standards Consistencr
Review.
Persons.wishlng to comment on the
State Determination of Consistency with
the Alaska Coastal Management
Program should submit written
comments within this 30-day comment
period, to the State of Alaska. Office of
Management and Budget, Division of
Governmental Coordination, P.O. Box
110030, Juneau. Alaska 99811—0030.
Comments should be addressed to the
attention of Alaska Coastal Management
Program Consistency Review-.
Persons wishing to comment on the
EPA Finding of No Significant Impact-
(FNSI), based on the environmental
n e Iment, should submit written
comments within this 30 day period. All
comments should include the name.
address and telephone number of the
commenter and a concise statement of
the basis of any comment and the
relevant facts upon which it is based.
Comments should be submitted to - -
Florence Carroll at the address below.
PUBLIC NEARING: No public hearings
have been scheduled. Persons -
requesting a public hearing should
submit their request to Florence Carroll
at the address below. Notice of a public
hearing will be published in the Federal
Register, Notices will also be mailed to.
all interested persons receiving copies
of the proposed permit.
APPEAL OP PERMiT: Within 120 days
following the service of notice of EPAs
final permit decision under 40 CFR.
124.15, any interested person may
appeal the Permit in the Federal Court
of Appeal In accordance with Section
509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act.
Persons affected bye general permit
may not challenge the conditions of the
Permit as a right of further EPA
proceedings. Instead, they may either
challenge the Permit in court or apply
for an individual NPDES permit and
then request a formal hearing on the
issuance or denial of an individual
permit.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD: The complete
administrative record for the draft
permit is available for public review at
the EPA Region 10 Library. 10th Floor,
at the address listed below. Copies of
- the draft general NPDES permit, fact
sheet, the environmental assessment.
the biological assessment, and the
Pribilof Seafood Ocean Discharge
Criteria Evaluation are available upon
request from the Region 10 Public
Information Center at 1-800-424-4EPA
(4372).
ADDRESSEE: Public comments should be
sent to: Environmental Protection.
Agency Region 10, NPDES Compliance
Unit (WD—135), 1200 Sixth Avenue.
Seattle, Washington. 98101.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT
Florence Carroll, of EPA Region 10, at
the address listed above or telephone
(206) 553—1760..
REGULATORY R.EXIBIUTY ACT: After
review of the facts presented in the
notice printed above. I hereby certify
pursuant to the provision of 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this general NPDES permit
will not have a significant Impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, the permit reduces a
significant administrative burden on
regulated sources.
Dated September ZI, 1 95.
David Teeter,
AcUngDlrectoz Offior of Water.
Finding of No Signulicantimpact (ENS!)
To All Interested Government Agencies.
Public Groups. and Inthviduals
In accordance with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) procedures for
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 40
CFR Part 6, Subpart F. EPA has
conducted an environmental review of
the following proposed action:
Isslffinrsl of general National Pollutant
Discharge Rlimiiuition System
(NPDES) Permit, no. AK-G52—P000, to
owners and operators of facilities,
both mobile andshore-based, engaged
in the processing of seafood within
three nautical miles of the Pribilof
Islands, Alaska
The general NPDES permit
requirements. Including effluent
limitations, monitoring provisions. and
other conditions applicable to the
operations covered are specified in the
proposed permit The permit Fact Sheet
-------
the basis for the permit
provisions.
AA environmental assessment (LA) fot
jg proposed action has been prepared.
gased Ofl the LA and the proposed
, nit conditions, and in accordance
;nth the guidelines for determining the
5 ificance of federal actIons (40 CFR
i508.27 1 and EPA criteria for initiating
p 0 vimflmeflta1 impact statement
IS) (40 CFR 6.605). EPA has
concluded that issuance of this general
NPDES permit will not result In a
5 jgniflcant effect on the human
environment. This action will nor
gignificantly. affect land use patterns or
population, wetlands or floodplains,
iueatened or endangered species.
farmlands. ecologically critical areas,-
gstoric resources. air quality, water
qualitY, noise levels, fish and wildlife
resources, nor will it conflict with
5 pproved local, regional, or state land
plans or policies. For the above
ons EPA has determined that an EIS
will not be prepared.
The term of the proposed NPDES
permit is two years only, during which
e additional field data will be
mllected. Another LA will be prepared
for the subsequent five-year permit
based on analyses ntiliTing that
additional field data.
AcopyofthefiAeValuatlflgthO- -
potential impacts of the proposed action
is available upon request by calling.
(206) 553—1214. or at the above address.
and Is Incorporated Into this FNSI by
reference.
Comments suppoiting or disagreeing
with this FNSI may be submitted tathe
following address for conslderatIon:
Rick Seaborne, U.S. Environmental -
Protection Agency. Region 10,1200
Sixth Avenue. WD-126, Seattle. --
Wsihington 98101. -
After evaluating the comments
remived, EPA will make a finaL
decision. No administrative action will
be taken on the proposed permit for at
least 30 days after the release date -
(Indicated above) of this FNSL EPA will
folly consider all comments received
during this public notice period before
taking final adios. -
Sincerely.
t vtd Teeter,
AaingDi,sctor, Wa tsr D i vision.
IFR D . 9525047 piled to—to-os. 5:45 seal’
LaNces. em er r
Public Information Collection
Approved by Office of Management
and Budget
September 29. 1995.
The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) has received Office
of Management and Budget (0MB)
approval for the following public
information collection pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. Pub.
L. 96—511. For further information
contact Shoko B. Hair, Federal
Communications Commission. (202)
418—1379: -
Federal C municeliose Comtnutiiân
0MB Control No.: 3060-0880.
Expiration Date: 12/31/96.
Title: ARMIS Video Dialton.
Quarterly Report AR?vflS Video
Die Ltone Fourth Quarter Report.
Form Nos.: FCC Report 43-09A FCC
Report 43—0gB.
Estimated Annual Burden: 4.620 total
annual hours; average 462 hours per
respondent: 10 respondents.
Description: FCC Report 43-09A.
provides a quarterly report of wholly
dedicated and shared video dialtone
Investment, expense, and revenue.
captured In a carrier’s subsidiary
accounting records. FCC Report 43-093
provides a fourth quarter report of video
dialtone Investment, expense, and
revenue dlsaggregated by regulated and
nonregulated classification and by
jurisdictional categories. The reports err
prescribed for every local exchange
carrier (LEC) that has obtained Section.
214 authoruatlon from the Commission.
to provide video dialtone trials or
commercial services. The reports wilI
enable the Commiision. State regulatory
agencies. local exchange carriers and
other Interested parties to analyze LECS ”.
video dialtone investment, revenue, and
costs.
Federal ( n ,’n .untcatIone Camm1ssIoa
WIlllemf. C .i.a. . , -
Acting Senetnty. . - -
IFR Dec. 95-24949 FlIed 10-6—05: 8:45 am)
__oem
Pt llc lefomiatlon Collection -
Approved by Office of Managsmont.
aaduudget -.
October 2. 1995.
The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) has received Officed
of Management and Budget (0MB)
approval for the following public
Information collection pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. Pub.
52679
L. 98—511. An agency may not conduct
or sponsor and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid
control number. For further information
contact Shoko B. Hair, Federal
Communications Commission, (202)
418—1379,
Federal Communications Commission
0MB Control No.: 3060—0370.
Expiration Date: 09/30/98.
Title: Part 32 - Uniform System of
Accounts for Telecommunications
Companies.
£stiniatedAnnuoi Burden: 3,031,868
total annual hours; average 12,685 hours
per respondent; 239 respondents.
Description: The Uniform System of
Accounts is a historical financial
accounting system which reports the
results of operational and financial
events in.a manner which enables both
management and regulators to assess
these results within a specified
accounting period. Subject respondents
are telecommunications companies.
Entities having annual revenues from
regulated telecommunications
operations of less than S100 million are
designated as Class B companies and are
subject to a less detailed accounting
system than those designated as Class A
comp n ’-
0MB Control No., 3060-0875.
Expiration Date: 09/30/98.
Title: Accounting and Reporting
Requirements for Video Dialtone
Service (RAO Letter 25).
Estimated Annual Burden: 8500 total
annual hours; average 850 hours per
respondent: 10 respondents.
Description: Carriers offering video
dlaltotm are required to establish two
sets of subsidiary accounting records:
one to capture the Investment, expense
and revenue wholly dedicated to video
dlaltone the other to capture the
Investment, expense and revenue shared
between video dialtone and other
services. LAO latter applies to those
carriers that have been authorized by
the Commission to provide video
dialtone service. RAO 25 provides
guidance to carriers on establishing the
subsidiary un1Ing records they use
to track the Investment, expense and
revenue related to their provision of
video dialtune service LAO 25 Is
needed to ensurethat the subsidiary
records maintained by the carriers
include all relevant data and to ensure
that the data is auditable.
0MB Control No.: 3080-0878.
Expiration Date: 09/30/98.
Title: Policies and Rules Concerning
Changing Long Distance Carrier (CC
Docket No. 91-64). Section 64.1100.
Federal Register I Vol.- 60, No. 195 / Tuesday. October 10, 1995 / Notices
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
- COMMISSION
-------
Part II.
Environ mental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 122 and 124
Storm Water Discharges; Amendment to
Requirements for National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permits;
FInal Rule
• Monday
August 7, 1995
-------
40230 Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. l5lIMocday. August 7, 1995 I Rules and Regulations
be finalized by March 1. 1999 and will’ light industrial and inmitutlo wi
determine the nature and extent of facilities, construction activities under
requirements. if any. that will apply to - five acres, and front municipal separate
the various types of phase II facilities storm sewer systems serving
prior to the end of the six.year po , ulations of less than 100.000.
application period defined by today’s oday’s rulemAking will promote the
rule. public interest by relieving most phas,
o*its: The direct final rule published of the immediate
on Aonl 7, 1995 at 60 FR 17950 and requirement to apply for permits.
corrected on April 18. 1995 at 60 FR Consequently, this rule relieves most
19464 is withdrawn and this final rule phase I I disciiargers from citizen suit
is effective on August 7. 1995. iabillty for failure to have an NPDES
accordance with 40 CFR 23.2, EPA permit over the next six years. lEa pha
explicitly providing that this rule si aii I] discharger complies with the
application deadlines established by
be considered final for purposes of today’s rule, the facility will not be
judicial review at 1p.m. (Eastern time) subiect to enforcement action for.
on August 7.1995. dIscharge without a permit or for failure
ADDRESSF9 The docket for this to submit ayermit application.
rulemaking is available for public Under tuuay’s rule, application
inspection at EPA’s Water DockeLRoom deadlines are in two tiers. The first tier
L.-102, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, allows the permitting authority to focus
DC 20460. For access to the docket Jrront efforts on those facilities that
materials, call (202) 260-3027 between will produce the greatest environmental
9 a.m. and 3 30 p.m. (Eastern thne) for benefit. The first tier is for those phase
an appobmnent. Please indicate that the ii dischargers that the NPDES permitting
docket to be accessed is for the April 7. authority determines are contributing to
1995 Federal Register notice on the a water quality impairment or are a
storm water phase 11 regulations. As significant contributor of 1 ollutants to
rovided In 40 CFR part 2. a reasonable waters of the U.& Those ischazgers
eo may be charged for copying services, that have been so designated are
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CCNTACI’ - required to obtain a permit and must
Nancy Cunningham. Office of submit permit applications to the
Wastewater Manageilimli. Permits permitting authority within 180 days of
DIvision (4203). Environmental neing notified that such an application
Protection Agency, 401 M Street. .SW. Is required. The permitting authority
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-9535.Z ‘has. the flexibility to extend this
deadline. Under the second tier, all
JPPI.EMENTARY INFORMATION viiedrdng phase U facilities must apply
L Ovm-view of Today’s Action -. for permits by August 7. 2001. but only
Today. EPA is promulgating the phase If the phase II regulatorr program in
II storm water application regulations as P ° at that time requires permits. EPA
proposed on April 7. 1995 (60 -: is actively exploring alternative control
1.7958). EPA also is withdrawing the strategies WL broad stakeholder
direct final iule published on that same Involvement. EPA Is also establishing
date (60 FR 17950); corrected 60 FR applicatlon requirements for phase II
19464k April 18, 1995. The direct final diachargers. as well as making other
iid proposed rules contained idenlical confonmog changes to other portions of
requirements. By today’s rule. EPA the NPDES regulations in today’s rule.
promulgates changes to the EPA Is subject to a court order to
storm water permit application supplemental rules for phase U
regulations under the CWA to tablieb sources by September 1. 1997, and
Rnali them by March 1, 1999. Natuwi
a common sense approach for all pbme Resources Defense Council. liIc. v.
U storm water discbargers. Phase U - - Clv. No. 95-634 PLY (D.D.C..
storm water dlschargers include thossv - - April 6.1995). However, if the CWA is
storm water discharges not addressed - amended prior to these dates to address
wider phase 1 of the storm water some of these storm water issues. EPA
pmgram. t . Generally, phase II - . will, of course, move to expeditiously
Aierhnrgers are point source disrthaiges
of storm water from commercial. retall . implement the statutory changes.
________ II. Background
Pbu. I diachargers tnclude dladta,px. IUUed EPA provided an extensive discussion
a psnnlt before Febeuaiy 4. 1q87: dlscbargel -
associated with Industrial activ ty. discharges froth of the statutory and regulatory
a municipal sapante sromi sewer system sorwingi. background of the storm water program
population of iOO OO or more; and discharges - ui the direct final rule published in the
the permitting authority determines to bs April 7. 1995. Federal Register notice
contributing to a violation of a w3tsr quality
standard or a sigeiflcanl contributor of pollutsots (60 FR 17950). For the sake of brevity.
the waters of the United States. EPA refers the reader to that notice and
ENViRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 122 and 124
(FRL-6271-71
Amendment to Requirements for
National Pollutant DIscharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permits
for Storm Water Discharges Under
Section 402(p)(6) of the Clean Water
Act -
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; withdrawal of direct
final rule.
SUMMARY Today. EPA is withdrawing
the storm water phase U direct final rule
published on April 7, 1995 (60 FR
17950) and promulgating a final rule in
its place based on an identical proposal
published that same day (60 FR 17958).
By today’s action. EPA is promulgating
changes to the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
storm water permit application
regulations under the Clean Water Act
(CWA) for phase II dischargers. Phase U
dischargers generally include all point
source discharges of storm water from
commercial, retail and institutional
facilities and from municipal separate
storm sewer systems serving
populations of less than 100.000.
Today’s rule establishes a sequential
application process hi two tiers Eor al1
phase II storm water discharges. The
first tier provides the NPDES permitting..
authority flexibility to require permits
for those phase U dischaxgers that are
determined to be contributing to a water
quality impairment or are a significant
contributor of pollutants to waters oLthe
United States. (“Permitting authority”
refers to EPA or Statà and Indian Tribes
with approved NPDES programs.) EPAI
expects this group to be small because.
most of these-types of dischargers have
already been included under phase I of
the storm water program. The second
tier includes all other phase U
dischargers. This larger group will be
required to apply for permits by the end.
of six years. but only if the phase U
regulatory program in pLace at that time
requires permits. As discussed In more
detail below. EPA is open to, and
committed to, exploring a number of
non-permit control strategies for the
phase U program that will allow
efficient and. effective targeting of real
environmental problems. As part of this
commitment. EPA has initiated a
process to include stakeholders in the
development of a supplemental phase U
rule under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA). This rule will
I
-------
only briefly repeats the background
necessary to explain the need for today’s
final rule.
As explained in CWA section 101.
Congress enacted the CWA “to restore
and maintain the chemical, physical.
and biological integrity of the Nation’s
waters” through reduction and eventual
elimination of the discharge of
pollutants into those waters. CWA
section 301 prohibits the discharge of
pollutants from a point source except in
compliance with certain other sections
of the Act. One of those sections, section
402, established the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
the permitting program for control of.
point source discharges including storm
water.
In the 1987 amendments to the CW&
Congress enacted section 402(p).
Section 4O 2 (p)(1) relieved certain storm
water dischargers (commonly referred to
as phase fl dischargers) from the
requirement to obtain a permit until•
October 1, 1992. Section 402(p)(6)
provided that EPA was to publish
regulations by October 1, 1992. Congress
later extended the date for the
permitting moratorium until October 1,
1994. and the date for publicatiOn of
phase 11 regulations until October 1..
1993. See Water Resources Development
Act of 1992. Public Law No. 202—580,
section 364, 106 Stat. 4797,4862(1992).
Though the relief from the permit
requirement lapsed on October 1, 1994.
EPA had not published phase if storm- -.
water regulations. On October 18, 1994.
EPA issued guidance explaining that
regulations had not yet been
promulgated for the phase U storm
water program, and that the Agency was
unable to waive the statutory
prohibition against unpermitted
discharges of pollutants to waters of the
United States in the absence of such -
regulations. EPA is not attempting to -.
extend the CWA deadlines in today’s
rule, but rather is establishing the phase
II storm water program under section
4O2(p)(6). (See Response to Comment
section below for further discussion of”
this issue.)
U I. Regulation C ianges
In today’s rule, EPA is designating..
under socUon 402(p)(6) all phase 11’
sources as being part of the phase II
program. EPA is establishing permit-’
application deadlines for these
dischargers in two tiers in today’s rule.
To obtain real environmental results
early, the first tier applies to those phase
U dischargers that the NPDES permitting
authority determines are contributing to
a water quality Impairment or are a
significant contributor of pollutants.
Those dischargers that have been so ; .
designated by the permitting authority
are required to obtain a permit and must
submit a permit application within 180
days of being notified that such an
application is required. The permitting
authority has the flexibility to extend
this deadline. Under the second tier, all
other phase II facilities must apply for
permits by August 7, 2001. but only if
the phase II regulatory program in place
at that time requires permits.
EPA also is establishing application
requirements for phase II dlschargers, as
well as making other conforming
changes to other portions of its NPDES
regulations In today’s rule. For example,
EPA is providing flexibility to the
permitting authority to modify the
specific application requirements for
phase U disthargers. Again EPA believes
this isa common sense approach to
alleviate unnecessary burden on phase
U dischargers. The specifics of the
application requirements and other
conforming changes are explained in the
Apr11 7, 1995. notice published at 60 FR
17950. EPA has not changed the
regulatory text in today’s final rule from
that notice.
w. Rpo to Public rrn . . ii. t
A comprehensive “response to
comment” document is available in the
administrative record for this. - -
rulemaking. Many signifIcant
comments, and EPA’s responses, are
sumynerized below.
Many commenters disagreed with
EPA’s Interpretation of section 402(p) of
the CWA in which EPA determined that
section 402(p) sets a statutory deadline
for the issuance of permits to phase 11
storm water dischargers. The
comxnenters argued that 402(p) does not
require permits for all discharges of
storm water after October 1. 1994, rather
it prohibits the need for such permits
before this date.
EPA disagrees. CWA section 301(a)
states that it is illegal to discharge.
pollutants to waters of the U.S. except
in compliance with Section 402. The
current regulations under section 402
establish a permit program for point
source discharges. In the 1987
- amendments to the CWA, Congress
added Section 402(p) to ensure the
orderly evolution of the NPDES storm-
water program. Section 4O2(p)(1) did
not alter the basic underlying
prohibition in Section 301(a) as it
applied to storm water discharges.
Section 402(p)(1) did, however,
establish temporary relief from
permitting requirements for certain
storm water discharges for a specified
period of time. Section 4 O 2 (p)( 6 )
provided EPA with the authority to
consider alternative control strategies
40231
for the phase U program. Because EPA
had not established alternatives under
section 4O2(p)(6), the existing
permitting requirements under section
402 applied to phase II dischargers after
October 1, 1994.
The legislative history behind 4 O 2 (p)
supports EPA’s position that when the
date lapsed. phase II sources became
subject to the pie-existing statutory
requirement to obtain a NPDES permit.
The Congressional Record from October
15, 1986 includes the following
statements from the House of
Representatives:
The relief afforded by this provision
extends only to October 1, 1992. After that
date, afl munici pa1 separate storm sewers are
subject to the requirements of 301 and 402.
After October 1. 1992, the permit
requirements of the Clean Water Act axe
restored for municipal separate storm sewer
systems serving a population of fewer than
100,000..
132 Cong. Rac. H10532 (Oct. 15, 1988)
More recent Congressional actions
provide even clearer support for EPA’s
interpretation of Section 402(p). The
original deadline for permits for phase
II storm water discharges was October 2,
1992. At the time of this original
deadline, the Agenc y wen not ready to
issue regulations for Implementation of
the phase U program. When Congress
recognized the severe liability problem
this would create for phase II
discharges, Congress decided to extend
the relief deadline in section 402(p)(1)
to October 1, 1994. At the same time,
Congress extended the deadline for
phase II regulations in section 4 O 2 (p)( 6 )
to October 1, 1993, to allow EPA more
time to develop phase II regulations. If
phase U dlschargers were not subject to
enforcement for violations of section
301(a) until EPA promulgated the phase
U regulations, Congress would not have
extended saetlons 4O2(p)(l) and
4 O 2 (p)(B) with differing deadlines. If
Congress had not Intended unregulated
phase U sources to be liable for
violations of section 301 a) on October
1.1992. there would have been no need
to amend section 4O2(p)(1) at all.
In related comments, concern was
expressed that If such statutory
deadlines are valid, EPA does not have
the authority to extend statutory permit
deadlines. In response, EPA disagrees
that this regulation extends statutory
deadlines The statutory deadline lapsed
on October 1,1994. EPA recognized that
fact, as well as’ the consequences
thereof, when It issued the October 18,
1994. guidance. The Agency’s authority
to act under these circumstances arises
from the clear text of section 4O2(p)(6).
That section directs EPA to issue
regulations which (1) designate storm
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 151 / Monday, August 7, 1995 I Rules and Regulations
-------
40232 Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 1St / Monday, August 7. 1995/ Rules and Reujo ,
water discharges to be regulated to
protect water quality and (2) establish a
comprehensive program to regulate
those sources, including, among other
things, expeditious deadlines. In today’s
rule. EPA relies on section 402(p)(6) to
designate all phase II discharges for
regulation under a comprehensive
program which, for most of those
dischargers, does not require permits for
6 years. During the six.year period, EPA
will investigate alternative control
strategies for the phase U program and
will develop supplemental regulations
through the FACA process.
Commenters also raised concern
regarding the potential for citizen suits.
As explained above, today’s final rule
effectively protects most phase II.
dischargers from citizen suit liability for
failure to have en NPDES permit for up
to six years.
A few commenters a ’iticlzed EPA for
the delay in pubh ching a Report to
Congress on storm water discharges not
covered under phase L Further, they did
not believe that President Clinton’s
Clean Water Initiative adequately
addressed procedures and methods to
control storm water discharges to the
extent necessary to mitigate impacts on
water quality. The Agency believes that-
the Storm Water Report to Congress,
which incorporates the President’s
Initiative. fulfills the requiresnents of
section 4 O 2 (p)(S). The Report to;
Congress cites to data confirming the
continuing threat to surface waters-
caused, in significant part. by
unregulated storm water discharges. The
Administration’s Clean Water Initiative
proposed .a variety of procedures and
methods through which permitting ..
authorities could moss flexibly addiese.
remaiining unreguJated discharges cd
storm water to the extent necessary to
mitigate Impacts on.watel quality.. -.
Several commenten questioned. -
whether State and local officials had ’
been consulted in developing the
proposed rule as directed by CWA
section 4O 2 (p)(S). In a September 9,
1992, Federal Rsg tarnotice, EPA
invited public commPIlt-on reasonable,.
alternative apprnarJi ..iior the phaseD.
storm water program. Prior’ to
publication of the direct final and
proposed rules on April 7,1995. EPA.
met with representatives of key
municipal organizetlons to discuss the
content of the rule and to gather
feedback and input. EPA will continne”
its outreach efforts by seeking additional
public input through FACA
subcommittee participation, and other.
means. in developing supplementaL.
regulations for the phase II program.
Commenters expressed their opinion
that the proposed rule should. be
considered an unfunded mandate as
described under the Unfunded Mandate
Reform Act of 1995. That is, the
commonters believed that the estimated
cost of the regulation to State. local, or
thbal governments, or to the private
sector, will be $100 million or more in
any one year. EPA disagrees. This
rutemaking actually reduces the
immediate regulatory burden imposed
on phase U facilities. EPA believes that
the cost to phase U dischargers that are
immediately designated under tier 1
will be small due to the extremely few
designations that are anticipated.
Furthermore. EPA has the authority to
modify permit application requirements
to require less information and alleviate
unnecessary burden on all phase II
facilities. Because of these reasons, costs
are expected to be well below $100-
million for each of the next six yearn.
EPA believes that any costs that might
be imposed after the sixth year will still
be below $100 million because of the
application flesibility, but. in any event,-
those costs will not exceed existing
costs (multiplied by the rate of inflAtion)
because of the current statutory
requirement that phase II dischargers
apply for permits immediately, absent
promulgation of today’s rule..
The costs of a ‘comprehensive” phase
I I program after the sixth year will, be
more fully characterized throujh-
additional ruII wulk1TIgas a resultof the.
FACA process. Under a judicial consent
order in Natural Resources Defense
Council, inc. v. EPA. Clv. No.. 95-0834
FtP (D.D.C. April 0. 1995), EPA is.-
required to propose by September 1.
1997. and take final action by March
1999. supplemental rules which clarify
the scope of coverage and control -
me” hAnim e for the phase IIprogranL
The cost to potential dlschargers of thia
actlonwtllbeidenxifledinthe
subsequent rulemaking and cannot’ be.
accurately predicted in today’s final -
nil .. However, EPA does not expect that’.
regulation to cost over 5100 millIon in’
any one year. -.
Commenters questioned. EPA’s
justification to designate all phase IL1 .
di hargers to protect water qualIty ...
Many commenters argued that - .‘. -
construction sites that disturb less than’
5 ames should not be so designated
because they do not present significant .
water quality concerns. In response,.
EPA relies on the Report to Congress to..
conclude that unregulated storm water”
discharges remain a significant threat to
the health of surface water quality.
While EPA recognizes that individual -
facilities within the total phase II
universe may not represent equal
threats, EPA believes that there is
sufficient Information concerning water
quality problems to designate the e
.c1assofphaseU saen -
Interim matter pending further study I
the context of the rulemaking descrji
above. EPA will make more scecific
designations in the context ohhat
rulemnkmn . In response to comments
about small construction sites, EPA
notes that these commenters did not
present any data to support a conclusion
that small construction presents only
negligible water quality concerns.
explained in the earlier notice, the
FACA subcommittee will explore the
appropriate scope of the phase U
program.
Today’s rule states that permit
applications are required within 180
days from receipt of notice for those
phase II discharges that the NPDES
permitting authority determines are
contributing to a water quality
impairment or area significant
contributor of pollutants. Commenters
requested and suggested further
clarification on both of these
determinations. EPA purposefully did
not provide explicit definitions of these
phrases in order to provide flexibility to
permitting authorities. Interpretive
flexibility is warranted due to cimat
and geographic differences across thd
United States. EPA published guidance
for designations under phase! of the
storm water program. Such guidance is
also applicable for the phase II program
designations and is included in the
record of this rulemaking.
- One conimenter took issue with the
180-day deadline for permit
applications, particularly for municipal
separate storm sawer systems that are
designated under tier 1. The commenter
felt that such a short period of time
would not be sufficient to prepare and
submit a municipal application. In
response. EPA reminds the commenter
that the Director has the authority to
grant permission to 5 iihniit the
application at a later date. Some
municipalities may not need more time
b use theyrnay be able to simply
reference information already submitted
for an adjacent or nearby large or
medium municipality under phase L
Additionally, the permitting authority is
able to modify the permit application
requirements and may require much
less information than what was required
for phase I discharger.
Another cominenter asked that the
period during which a permitting
authority may designate a facility be
limited to one year. EPA is not limiting
the tim, frame for designations because
the permitting authority will need to
account forchanging conditions and
new information that becomes available
over time...
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 151 / Monday, August 7, 1995 I Rules and Regulations
40233
Some commenters stated that thern
“direct final rule” is not specifically
orovided for in the Administrative
‘rocedure Act (AM) nor has EPA
demonstrated “good cause” to issue a
“direct final rule” under 5 U.S.C
section 553. This comment is no longer
relevant because EPA is withdrawing
the direct final rule and instead Issuing
a final rule that responds to comments
received.
One commenter disputed the -
assertion that urban storm water runoff
is a cause of real water quality use - -
impairment in the United States. The
commenter also believed that It is
inappropriate to base the
implementation of phase U’
requirements on excoedance of water
quality standards associated with urban
storm water runoff. The commenter
believed that water quality criteria were
not developed to regulate many of the
chemical constituents in urban storm.-’
water runoff. EPA disagrees The fact
that urban runoff is a real cause of water
quality use impairment Is very well
supported throughout the- literature and
is summarized by EPA in the Water
Quality Inventory: Reports to Congress
prepared on a biannual basis under
section 305(b) of the CWA. EPA believes
that basing the Implementation of phase
II requirements on exceeIl nr of water
quality standards i appropriate because
attainment of water quality standards is
one of the explicit goals of the NPDES
program. EPA further disagrees that
water quality criteria have not been
developed for many of the chemical
constituents in urban storm water. To
the contrary, water quality criteria exist
for many such constituents, particularly
haavy metals and oil and grease.
A few commenters argued that
comments received on the rule are
unrepresentative of the groups affected.
because small cities and commercial.
establishments were unaware of the
direct final and proposed rules. In
response, EPA believes that the 80-day
comment period was sufficient for small
entities to formulate their rrnnmentn
andior review those drafted by. their
representative associations. Many of the
comments received were from national
organizations representing such small
cities and businesses, including...
National Association of Counties,
National Association of Convenience
Stores, Society of Independent Gasoline
Marketers of America, National
Association of Flood and Stormwater
Management Agencies, American
Petroleum Institute, National
Association of Home Builders, and
‘ merican Car Rental Association: -
One commenter disagreed that this
rulemaking significantly reduces the
Immediate regulatory burden imposed
on phase II facilities because phase U
municipalities would have the same
burden imposed on phase I
municipalities. In response, EPA points
out that today’s nate provides the
Director with discretion to modify the
application requirements for phase 11
dischargers. EPA expects Directors to
exercise this discretion to reduce the.
application burden to both
municipalities and individual facilities.
Several commenters questioned the
types of permits that will be available to
dlschargers in 2001. Currently, the.
permitting authority has the option of
individual or general permits. However.
EPA does not anticipate that permits
will be necessary for all phase II
dischargers in 2001. The Agency is
committed to promulgate supplemental
rules that further consider the scope of.
the phase II program as wellu
alternative control mechanisms
Many commenters made suggestions
for the second tier of the phase II
regulations such as to allow and
encourage phase II municipalities to
join phase I nuinicipalities in the same
watershed, standardize procedures
across the United States, and delegate
construction permitting to local
governments. Such suggestions will be:
provided to the FACAsubcommIttee .
and will be taken into consideration:
when developing the subsequent phase
II regulations. Comxnenters also mad.
suggestions for representation on the
FACA subcommittee. Such suggestions
are being considered in formulating the
subcommittee.
Supporting Documentation
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12888. the
Agency must determine whether the
regulatory action is “significant,” and
therefore subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget (0MB) and
the requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines “significant
regulatory action” as one that is likely.
to lead to a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely and materially affecting a
sector of the economy, productivity.
competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety. or State, local,
or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
Impact of entitlements. grants. user fees,
or loan programs, or the rights and
obligations, of recipients thereof;.
(4) Raise novet legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set foith in the Executive Order.
EPA has determined that this
rulemaking significantly reduces the
current regulatory burden imposed on
phase II facilities. The proposed rule
was submitted to 0MB for review. 0MB.
cleared the proposed rule with minor
changes. Review of this final rule was
waived by 0MB under the provisinns of
Executive Order 12866.
8. Executive Order 12875 -
Under Executive Order 12875,
entitled “Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership”, issued
by the President on October 26, 1993,
the Agency Is required to develop an
effective process to allow elected
officials and other representatives of
State and Tribal governments to provide
meaningful and timely input in the
development of regulatory proposals.
EPA fully supports this objective and
has initiated a consultation process with
both States and Tribes which will be
continued through the development of
additional phase U rules. Specifically,
EPA has discussed this action with the
representatives of the States, local
governments, the Agency’s American
Indian Environmental Office (AIEO),
and parts of the regulated community.
The reaction of the States is positive.
The States and the Association of State
and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators (ASIWPCA) support the
approach that is being taken under
existing law; the States and ASIWPCA
also support concurrent changes to the
law. ASIWPCA has submitted a letter to
the Agency dated March 3. 1995. which
is included In the record for this matter.
EPA has responded to many of
ASIWPCA’s comments in this preamble.
The reaction of many municipalities
is that they prefer a statutory change
now to clarify-the issue once and for all.
Municipalities’ representatives
(National Association of Counties,
National League of Cities, U.S.
Conference of Mayors. and the National
Association of Flood and Stormwater
Management Agencies) have raised
many issues to the Agency and have
submitted a letter dated February 16,
1995, which is-contained in the record
for this matter. The municipalities
believe that it is inappropriate for EPA
to act now when Congress may act on
this matter; that the action taken by EPA
Is not:ln conformance with the Law, and
that EPA did not consult with local
officials on this matter. EPA has
responded to many of the -
municipalities’ concerns in this
preamble. EPA did consult with various
-------
40234 FederaiRegister / VoL 60, No. 151 / Monday, August 7. 1995 I Rules and Rgulaflo a .
representatives of losel govv .mia
early in the development of this
regulation as well as more
comprehensively in February 1995.
This rule was also coordinated with
EPA’s Amen can Indian Environment
Office (AIEO). The Office of Water will
work through the AIEO to provide for a
Tribal representative to participate in
the FACA process.
EPA believes that it has developed an
effective process to obtain input from
State. Tribal and local governments
befozoissuingth lsnile.aswellaa.
• receiving comments on the direct finaL
rule and accompanying proposed
rulemaking, and has met the
consultation requirements for States..
federally recognized Tribes and
localities under the terms of Executive.
Order 12875.
C Paperwork Reduction ActS
The Papeiwork Reduction Act ,.44
U.S.C 3501 at seq., Is intended .to
minimize the reporting and record .
keeping burden on the regulated
community. as well as to miniini the
coat of Federal information collection
and dissemination. In general, the Act
requires that Information requests and.
record.keeplngrequirements affecting.
ten or morn ncn FederaLrespoodents hO
approved by the Office of Management
andBudget.
EPA’s existing Information collection,.
request (ICR) entitled “Application fon
NPDES Discharge Permit and Sewage..
Sludge Management Permit (0MB-
Number 2040-0088) co ’
information that responds Lu this Issue-.
for all storm water dlschargas including
those facilities designated into th.
program under this regulation as...
causing water quality problems. Tha- .
burden of ai,, iIA , water quality’
designations. . iHliuiid under the phase 1-
storm water program, were accounte&. r -
for in the ICR and r inaI applicable t04 .
the designations that may be mad.. -
under this rule EPA will review and.
revise the 4m t .s centhinad in this
ICR ., as approptiate. in its renewal.-.
process .
0. ReguIator FIexibili y Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility A
(RFA). 5 U.&C. 601 at seq.. EPA must
prepare a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis for regulations having a
significant impact on a suh.4antlal
number of small entitien The RFA
recognizes three kinds of small entities...
and defines them as follows:
(1) Small governmental
jurisdictions—any government of a. -
district with a population of less than;-
50,000.
(2) Small business-any bua ’- Although not requl tomn
which is independently owned and finding under section 208, EPA.
operated and not domlnnnt In its field; concludes that this rule Is cost-eft
as defined by the Small Business and a significant reduction In bumj fot
Administration regulations .under the- State and local governments. In a
Small Business Act. September 9, 1992. Federal Rerin . . ..
(3) Small orgJtni tf on—any not.for’- notice, EPA Invited public
profit enterprise that I . Independently consideration of and comment on
owned and operated and not dominant reasonable alternative approaches for
in its field. the phase II storm water program.
EPA has determined that today’s rule Today’s rule provides for the first step
would not have a significant impact on for many of those alternatives by
a substantial number of small entities, providing for an orderly process for
and that a Regulatory Flexibility. devdloping supplemental regulations.
Analysis therefore Is unnecessary. By establishing -regulatory relief until
Through todays action EPA Ii development of these alternative
benefiting small entities by (1) adopting approaches. today’s rulemaking itself
a common sense approach to deal with provide. the most cost-effective and
the issue of storm water phase II least burdensome alternative to achieve
requIrements, (2) providIng the ability ‘ the objectives of the rule at this stage .
for the permitting authority to maneg n*i t with statutory requirements.
for resuhs by providing flmdbllityto EPA
deal with storm water chase I L
permitting at this timehased on water- In itiated consultation with:
quality violations or signL cant - representative orgisni, t1ons of small
contribution of pollutants. (3) governments under Executive Order
clarifying and reducing applicable 12875. In doing so. EPA provided noUca
burdens for those facilities currently%-- to potentially affected small
5UbISCt to 1ihas ” II requirements. fl governments toeneble them to provide
meemngfuLand timely input. EPA plans
rule provides additional time far EPA tO to inform, educate, and advise small
work with all st fr hnhders, fncludin .-
governments on compliance with any
small entitles, to lop addltlona& req ements that may arise in further
phase II regulations iader a-FACA - -
process. The Agency is teèter development of the stomi water phase U
Issue these supplemental phase lL ; ::, rules. - -.
regulations by March1 1999 lii that ’ 7 Piocediual Requirements and
rikin Mng EPA wiU-recouslder ’ltea - Effective Date- i ’. - -
Regulatory Flexibility. Act analycls
- Today’s rule is effectlvs -on .Auguse 7,
£ Unfunded Mandates -. . .: 1995. Sectloa55&of LhaAPA provides
Under section 202 ofthsUthnded:.. . that the requlredpublication orservice
,kii iAt Reform Act of 1995- . of a substantiveruleshallbe made not
(“Unfunded MandatesAct’1,s1gne& ’ lees tban3Odays before Its effective
Into law on March 22. 1995. EPA mustc . date except.a. relevant here. (1) for a
prepare a written statement to..: -.. substantiv, rule which grants or-
uI1pany proposed rules where the’.. reaignlmesn exemption or relieves e
estimated costs to State. local; or tribal. rnstrictlonor (2) when the agency finns
governments. arto the private secrn and pubH . .h good nms. for foregoing
will be $100 million or more in anyon. delayed Rff .uctLv s Today ’s rule.
ysan Under section 205. EPA muat ‘ relieves phase ftdlschargers from the -
silect the most cost-effectiv, and teas : rmm 4 .fnreqnJr ,men( to obtain a
burdensome alternative J , .. Apna.y ha...
the objective of such a rule and that ts . detennlned.tbst good cause exists for-
rnncictent with statutory requirements. m k4u .gtj jg regniatlan
Section. 203 requires EPA to $**hH ,11L$ l dfstaLy becaus, today’s final rule
plan for informing and advising eny dosi not differ from the.withdrawre—
small governments that may be. - direct final rule which would have
significantly and urriquely-aff y becmn, ifD.uthu , on August 7, 1995.
anyrule.
EPA estimates that the costeto Stats, Li ii ofSUs. .; .
local,.or tribal governments, or the. 4 ( 1 G’R p t 122.: -
private sector, from this rule will betas. . -
than SlOG million. This rulem king -- Enviromental protection,
significantly reduces the immediate Mminiitrative -practlce and procedure.
regulatory burden Imposed on phase II Confidential business information.
facilities. EPA has determined that a Hmzdmmmibst’u ’rns . Reporting and
unfunded mandates statement therefore reomdkeeping requirements. Water
is unnecessary. pollution controL
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 151 I Monday. August 7, 1995 I Rules and Regulations
40235
4OCFRPOJ ’t 224
Mm4n stiet1ve practic. and
procedure. Air pollution control.
Hazardous waste, Indian lands,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Water pollution control.
Water supply.
Dated: July 31. 1995.
Carol I I. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth In this
preamble, parts 122 and 124 of Title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations are
amended as follows:
PART 122—(AMENDEDJ
1. The authority citation for part 122
continues to read as follows:
Autberity Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C 1251
et seq.
2. Section 122.21 is amended by
adding a sentence to the end of
paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
O 123.21 Appikatico for a partulI
(applicable to Stole programs, am 123.25).
• a * a a
(c) Time to apply.
(1)” ‘New discharges composed.
entirely of storm water, other than those
dlschargers Identified by § 122.26(a)(1).
shall apply for and obtain a permit
according to the application
requirements in § 122.26(g).
3. Section 122.26(a)(1) is amended as
follows:
a. In paragraph (a)( 1) the Introductory
text is amended by revising the date
“October 1. 1991” to read “October 1,
1994”;
b. By adding paragraph (a)(9) as set
forth below;
c. By revising the title of paragraph (a)
as set forth below;
d. In paragraph (e)(1)(iI). by revising
the phrase “permit application
requirements are reserved” to read
“permit application requirements are
contained In paragraph (g) of this
section”; and
e. By adding paragraph (g) as set forth
below.
0123.26 Stone water discharges
(applicable to Stoth NPDES programs, am
0123.25).
(a) *
(9) On and alter October 1, 1994.
dlschargers composed entirely of storm
water, that are not otherwise already
required by paragraph (a)(1) of this
section to obtain a permit, shall be
requlredtoapplyforandobtalna
permit according to the application
requirements in paragraph (g) of this
section. The Director may not require a
permit for d!scharges of storm water as
provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section or agricultural storm water
runoff which Is exempted from the
definition of point source at ff122.2
and 122.3.
• a a a
(e) Application deadlines under
paragraph (a)(11.
* * a a a
(g) Application requirements for
discharges composed entirely of storm
water under Clean Water Act section -
402(p)(6). Any operator of a point
source required to obtain a permit under
paragraph (a)(9) of this section shall
submit an application In accorl 4 .I r.
with the following requirements.
(1) 4pplicotion deadlines. The
operator shall submit an application In
accordance with the following
deadlines:
(I) A discharger which the Director
determines to contribute to a violation
of a water quality standard or is a
significant contributor of pollutants to
waters of the United States shall apply
for a permit to the Director within 180
days of receipt of notice, unless
permission for a later date is granted by
the Director (see 40 CFR 124.52(c)); or
• (U) All other dlschazgers shall apply
to the Director no later than August 7,
2001.
(2) Application requirements. The
operator shall submit an application in
accordance with the following
requirements, unless otherwise
modified by the Director
(I) Individual application for non-
municipal discharges. The requirements
contained in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section.
(ii) Application requirements for
municipal separate storm sewer
discharges. The requirements contained
in paragraph (d) of this section.
(iii) Notice of intent to be covered by.
a general permit issued by the Director.
The requirements contained in 40 CFR
122.28(b)(2).
PART 124—(AMENDEDJ
4. The authority citation for part 1 24
continues to read as follows:
Authsrit Resource Conservatlonand
Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 3901 ci seq.; Safe
Drinking Water Act. 42 U.S.C 300(f) ci seq.:
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C 1251 ci seq.;
Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C 7401 ci seq.
5. Section 124.52(c) is amended by
revising the parenthetical statement and
the next to the last sentence to read as
follows:
* 124. Permite isquhed one case.by-
ease bs&s.
a * * a a
(c) (see 40 CFR 122.26 (a)(1)(v),
(c)(1)(v), and (g)(1)(i)) — The
discharger must apply for a permit
under 40 CFR 122.26 (a)(1)(v) and
(c)(1)(v) within 60 days of notice or
under 40 CFR 122.28(g)(1)(i) within 180
days of notice, unless permission for a
later date is granted by the Regional
Administrator, a a a
(FR Doc. 95-49191 Filed 8—4—95: 8:45 cmi
se ara coos mm
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 128 / Wednesday. July 5. 1995 I Notices
34991
:cy is in accordance with the
.‘icy’s statement of policy as
prescribed in Federal Register No. 123.
Vol. 56, dated June 26. 1991. Exceptions
to this general rule will be made if a
product poses a risk concern, or is in
noncompliance with reregistration
requirements. or is subject to a data call-
- in. In all cases, product-specific
disposition dates will be given in the
cancellation orders.
Existing stocks are those stocks of
registered pesticide products which are
currently in the United States and
which have been packaged. labeled, and
released for shipment prior to the
effective date of the cancellation action.
Unless the provisions of an earlier order
apply, existing stocks already in the
hands of dealers or users can be
distributed, sold or used legally until
they are exhausted, provided that such
further sale and use comply with the
EPA-approved label and labeling of the
affected product(s). Exceptions to these
general rules will be made in specific
cases when more stringent restrictions
on sale, distribution, or use of the
products or their ingredients have
already been imposed. as in Special
Review actions, or where the Agency
‘-s identified significant potential risk
nerDs associated with a particular
, , emical.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection. Pesticides
and pests, Product registrations.
Dated: June 15. 1995.
Frank Sanders.
Oimclor. Program Management and Support
Division. Office of Pesticides Program.
(FR Doc. 95—16188 Filed 7—3—95: 8:45 ami
oooa -_ -----
(FRL-6250-81
Availability of Proposed Approval
Decision and Ust under CWA 303(d)
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Region V I I.
ACTION: Notice of availability .
SUMMARY: This notice announces the
availability of the List for the state of
Iowa pursuant to CWA section 303(d)(2)
as well as EPA’s proposed approval and
disapproval decisions, and requests
public comment.
DATES: Comments must be submitted to
PA on or before August 4, 1995.
DRESSES. Copies of these items can be
otained by writing or calling Jerome
Pitt: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region Vfl; Water Management
Division; 726 Minnesota Ave.; Kansas
City. Kansas 86101; Phone:
913.551.7766; FAX: 913.551.7765.
Comments on thea items should be
sent to Jerome Pitt. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region V ii: Water
Management Division; 726 Minnesota
Ave.; Kansas City. Kansas 66101.
FOR FURThER INFORMAT iON CONTACT:
Jerome L. Pitt at 913.551.7766.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ectlon
303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
requires that each State identify these
waters for which existing required
pollution controls are not stringent
enough to implement State water
quality standards. For those waters.
states are required to establish total
ma dsnurn daily loads (TMDLs)
according to priority ranking. The
Identified waters and loads are requlred
to be submitted to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
for approval from “time to time.”
On January 11, 1985 EPA published a
final rule (50 FR 17751 that established
40 CFR part 130 (Water Quality
Pbtnning and Management). This rule
established certain requirements for
State and local government water
quality programs. Including
requirements related to the
implementation of section 303(d) of the
CWA. The regulation did not specify
dates for State compliance with the
section 303(D) requirements. but
reiterated the statutory provision calling
for submission from time to time. On
July 24, 1992. EPA published a final
nile (57 FR 33040) that amended 40 CFR
130.7 to establish that, for the purposes
of identifying water-quality limited
waters still requiring TMDLS must also
Include a priority ranking and must
Identify the waters targeted for TMDL
development during the next two years.
Consistent with EPA’s amended
regulation Iowa has submitted to EPA
for approval their list decisions under
section 303(d)(2). EPA today proposes to
approve this list subinitteo y Iowa and
solicit public comments on the approval
decision and on the state list.
Dated: June 14. 1995.
Kenneth S. Buchholz,
Acting Director Water, Wetlands, and
Pesticides Division, U.S. EPA Region V I I.
IFR Doc. 95-18280 Filed 7—3—95, 8:45 am)
uao coes es
RL-62504l
Final General NPDES Permit for
Seafood Processors in the State
Waters of Alaska and In Receiving
Waters Adjacent to Alaska and
Extending Out 200 NautIcal Miles from
the Coast and Baseline of Alaska:
Alaskan Seafood Processors General
NPDES Permit (No. AKG-52-0000)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency. Region 10.
ACTiON: Notice of Final General NPDES
Permit.
SUMMARY: The Director, Water Division,
EPA Region 10. is reissuing General
National Pollutant Discharge
5 Iiinii *tlon System (NPDES) permit no.
AK—CS 2-0000 for seafood processors in
Alaska pursuant to the provisions of the
Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
The General NPDES permit authorizes
discharges from offshore, nearshore and
share-based vessels and onshore
facilities engaged in the processing of
fresh, frozen, canned, smoked, salted
and pickled seafoods. The permit also
authorizes discharges from offshore
vessels (operating more than one
nautical mile from shore at MLLW) that
are engaged in the processing of seafood
paste. mince 6r meal. The permit
authorizes discharges of processing
wastes, process disinfectants. sanitary
wastewater and other wastewaters,
Including domestic wastewater. cooling
water, boiler water, gray water.
freshwater pressure relief water,
refrigeration condense, water used to
transfer seafood to a facility, and live
tank water. The permit authorizes
discharges to waters of the United States
in and contiguous to the State of Alaska.
except for receiving waters excluded
from coverage as protected, special, at-
risk, degraded or adjacent to a
designated “seafood processing center.”
The general NPDES permit for seafood -
processors in Alaska does not authorize
discharges from nearshore or shore-
based seafood processors of mince,
paste or meal (operating one nautical
mile or less from shore at MLLW). The
permit does not authorize discharges of
petroleum hydrocarbons. toxic
poiltUants, or other pollutants not
specified in the permit. The permit does
not authorize discharges to waters
excluded from coverage as protected,
special, at-risk, degraded or adjacent to
a designated “seafood processing
center.”
Notice of the draft Alaskan seafood
processors general NPDES permit was
published July 28. 1994 in the Federal
Register (59 FR 38473) and the
Anchorage Daily News, the Juneau
Empire and the Seattle Times.
-------
34992
Federal Register / Vol . 60. No. 128 / Wednesday. July 5, 1995 I Notices
The final permit is printed below and
establishes effluent limitations,
standards, prohibitions, monitoring
requirements and other conditions on
discharges from seafood processors in
the area of coverage. The conditions are
based on material contained in the
administrative record, including an
ocean discharge criteria evaluation, an
environmental assessment, a finding of
no significant impact, and a biological
evaluation of potential effects on
threatened and endangered species.
Changes made in response to public
comments are addressed in full in a
document entitled “Response to Public
Comments on the Proposed Reissuance
of the Alaskan Seafood Processors
General NPDES Permit.” This document
In being sent to all commenters, current
parmittees and applicants and Is
available to other parties from the
address below upon request.
EFFECTiVE OATE. The general NPDES
permit shall become effective August 4,
1995.
AOOAESSES: Unless otherwise noted in
the permit. correspondence regarding
this permit should be sent to
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region 10. Attn: Wastewatar Branch.
WD—134, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
WashIngton. 98101.
FOR FURThER INFORMATiON CONTACT:
Burney Hill or Florence Carroll, of EPA
Region 10. at the address listed above or
telephone (206) 553—1761 or 553—1760
respectively. Copies of the final general
NPDES permit, response to public
comments and today’s publication will
be provided upon request by the EPA
Region 10 Public Information Center at
1—600—424—4372 or 206—553—1200.
IPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA
reissues this general NPDES permit
pursuant to its authority under Sections
301(b), 304, 306, 307, 308, 401, 402, 403
and 501 of the Clean Water Act. The fact
sheet for the draft permit, the response
to comments document, the ocean
discharge criteria evaluation, the
biological evaluation, the environmentai
assessment, the 401 certIfication issued
by the State of and the coastal
zone management plan consistency
determination issued by the State of
AIn ks set forth the principal facts and
the significant factual, legal and policy
questions considered In the
development of the terms and
conditions of the final permit presented
below.
The State of Alaska. Department of
Environmental Conservation, has
certified that the subject discharges
comply with the applicable provisions
of SectIons 208(e), 301. 302, 303. 306
and 307 of the Clean Water Act.
The State of Alaska. Office of
Management and Budget, Division of
Governmental Coordination, has
certified that the general NPDES permit
is consistent with the approved Alaska
Coastal Management Program.
Changes have been made from the
draft permit to the final permit in
response to public comments received
on the draft permit, the final coastal
management plan consistency
determination from the State of Alaska,
and the final 401 certIfication issued by
the State of Alaska.
The following identifies several
specific areas of change, among others,
which have been embodied in the final
permit: the areas excluded from
coverage do not include the proposed
category “special resource waters of
Alaska” and have been expanded to
Include national wilderness areas,
seabird colonies larger than 1,000
Individuals, tidagak Bay. Ward Cove
and the coastal seas of the Pribilof
Islands; offshore seafood processors
(discharging more than one nautical
mile from shore) are required to develop
and operate In accordance with a best
management practices plan: one acre
zones of deposit are authorized by the
State of Alaska; circular mixing zones
with radii of 100, 200 and 300 feet are
authorized respectively for onshore,
nearshore and offshore seafood
processors by the State of Alaska: dive
surveys are required for discharges of
more than 7 days to receiving waters
within one nautical mile of shore and in
less than 20 fathoms of depth: requests
for waivers from the monitoring of the
seafloor, sea surface and shoreline are
allowed: and an appendix describes the
areas excluded from coverage under the
permit in detail.
Within 120 days following this
service of notice of EPA’s final permit
decision under 40 R 124.15, any
interested person may appeal the
general NPDES permit in the Federal
Court of Appeal in accorfil%nre with
Section 509(b)(1) of the Clean Water
Act. Persons affected by a general
NPDES permit may not challenge the
conditions of the permit as a right of
further EPA proceedings. Instead, they
may either challenge this permit in
court or apply for an individual NPDES
permit and then request a formal
hearing on the issuance or denial of an
individual permit.
Dated: June 21. 1995.
Jams Hastings,
Acting Director. Water Division.
owNa cove
Authorization To Discharge Undr
National Pollutant Disharge
Elimination System For Seafood
Processors in Alaska
e
(General Permit No.; AKG—52.-0000I
In compliance with the provisions of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 at
seq. (hereafter, CWA or the Act), the
owners and operators of seafood
processing facilities described in Part I
of this general National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit are authorized to discharge
seafood processing wastes and the
concomitant wastes set out in Part 11 of
this Permit to waters of the United
States, except those excluded from
authorization of discharge in Part Ill of
this Permit, in accordance with effluent
limitations, monitoring requirements
and other conditions set forth herein.
The discharge of wastes not specifically
set out in Part [ I of this permit is not
authorized under this permit.
The general NPDES permit AK-CS 2—
0000 reissued in 1989 is Invalid as of
the effective date of this reissued
permit. except as provided for in the
State of Alaska Consistency Conditions.
A copy of this general permit must be
kept at the seafood processors facility
where the discharges occur.
This permit shall become effecth
August 4, 1995.
This permit and the authorization to
discharge shall expire at midnight. 5
years from the effective date of the
permit.
Signed thIs 21st day of June.
Jams Hastings,
Acting Director. WaterDivision. Region 10.
U.S. Environmental Protectlozi Agency.
Table of Contents
Cover Page
L Authorized Facilities
IL Authorized Discharges
I II. Areas Excluded From Authorization
Under This General NPDES Pemut
A. Protected Water Resources and Special
Habitats
B. At-risk water resources and waterbodrea
C. Degraded waterbodles
0. Designated fish processing center
E. Waiver
IV. Application to be Permitted Under This
General NPDES Permit
A. Submittal of a Notice of Intent to be
covered under this general NPDES
permit
B. What constitutes a “timely” submittal of
a Notice of Intern
C. What constitutes a “complete” submittal
of a Notice of Intent
D. How does an applicant request a w
to discharge in an oxcluded area tu.
this general NPDES permit
V Categoriei of Permittees and Requirement’
A. Offshore seafood pmcessors
B. Nearshors’ seafood processz rs
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 128 / Wednesday. July 5. 1995 / Notices
34993
C. Shore.based seafood processors
Specific Waste Mixilmizalion and
Moattonag Requirements
A. Best management practices plan
B. Annual report
C. Seafloor monitoring requirements
D. Sea surface and shoreline monitoring
requirements
V I I. Recording end Reporting Requirements
A. Records contents
B. Retention of records
C. Twenty1our hour notice of
noncompliance reporting
D. Other noncompliance reporting
VT ! !. Compliance Responsibilities
A. Duty to comply
B. Penalties for violations of permit
conditions
C. Need to halt or reduce actlvfty not a
defense
D. Duty to mitigate
B. Proper operation and maintenance
F. Bypass of e. eut facilities
C. Upset conditions
H. Planned changes -
L Anticipated noncompliance
IX. General Provisions
A. Permit actions
B. Duty toreapply
C. Duty to provide information
D. Incorrect Information and omissions
E. Signatory requirements
F. Availability of reports
C. Inspection and enny
H. Oil and hazardous substance liability
L Property rights
J. Severability
K. Transfers
L. State laws
M. Reopener clause
X. DEFINITIONS and ACRONYMS
APPENDIX. List of Areas Excluded from
Coverage
ATrACHMENT: State Consistency
Conditions
Authorized Facilities
Subject to the restrictions of Part RI of
this Permit (excluded areas), the
following categories of dischargers are
authorized to discharge the pollutants
set out in Part II of this permit once a
Notice of Intent has been filed with, and
an authorization is received from, EPA.
A. Owners and operators of the
facilities operating offshore or nearshore
vessels, and shore-based vessels or
onshore facilities engaged in the
processing of fresh, frozen, canned.
smoked, salted or pickled seafoodr.
B. Owners and operators of the
facilities operating offshore vessels that
are engaged in the processing of seafood
paste, mince or meaL
Shore-based and nearshore seafood
processors discharging seafood paste,
mince or meal process wastes to
receiving waters within one (1) nautical
mile of shore at MLLW are not
iuthorjzed to discharge under this
qeneral NPDES permit.
Operations which catch and process
‘ afnod and which discharge less than
one thousand (1.000) pounds of seafood
waste per day and less than fifteen tons
(30,000 Ibs) of seafood waste per year
may be but are not required to be
covered under this general NPDES
permit.
U. Authorized Discharges
A. This Permit authorizes the
discharge of the following pollutants
subject to the limitations and conditions
set forth herein:
Seafood process wastes;
Process ‘li infectants;
Sanitary wastewater and
D. Other wastewaters. Including
domestic wastewater, cooling water.
boiler water, gray water, freshwater
pressure relief water, refrigeration
condensate, water used to transfer
seafood to the facility, and live tank
water.
The discharge of wastes aol
specifically set out in this Part is not
authorized under this Permit.
Ifl. Areas Excluded From Authorization
Under This General NPDES Permit
Subject to the waiver provision set out
in Part fiLE below, this Permit does not
authorize the discharge of pollutants in
the following circumstances.
A. Protected Water Resources and
Special Habitats
This Permit does not authorize the
discharge of pollutants In the protected
water resources and special habitats as
described below and listed in the
Appendix.
1. Within one (1) nautical mile of a
State Came Sanctuary, State Caine
Refuge or State Critical Habitat.
2. WIthin one (1) nautical mile of a
National Park or Preserve.
3. Within one (1) nautical mile of a
National Wildlife Refuge.
4. Within one (1) nautIcal mile of a
National Wilderness Area.
5. Within three (3) nautical miles of
the seaward boundary of a rookery or
major haul-out area of the Steller sea
lion which has been designated as
“critical habitat” by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS).
8. WIthin one (1) nautical mile of the
seaward boundary of a rookery of the
northern fur seal during the period May
1 through November 15.
7. Within one (1) nautical mile of the
seaward boundary of a nesting area of a
colony of one thousand or more of the
following seabirds during the period
May I through September 30: aukiets,
cormorants, fulmars. guillemots.
kittiwakes, murrelets. murres. puffins
and/or terns.
8. In a river designated as wild or
scenic under the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act.
B. At-risk Water Resources and
Watethodies
This Permit does not authorize the
discharge of pollutants in the following
at-risk water resources and waterbodies.
1. Areas with water depth of less than
ten (10) fathoms mean lower low water
(MLLW) that have or are likely to have
poor flushing, Including but not limited
to sheltered waterbodles such as bays,
harbors. inlets, coves and lagoons and
semi-enclosed water basins bordered by
sills of less than ten (10) fathom depth.
For the purposes of this section. “poor
flushing” means average currents or
turbulence of less than one third (0.33)
of a knot at any point in the receiving
water within three hundred (300) feet of
the outfall.
2. Akun Island: Lost Harbor.
3. Streams or’ rivers within one (1)
statute mile upstream of a permanent
drinking water intake.
4. Lakes or other impoundments of
fresh water.
C Degmded WaterbodJes
This Permit does not authorize the
discharge of pollutants in the following
degraded waterbodies.
1. Akutan Island: Akutan Harbor west
of longitude 185°48’OO” W.
2. Ttnalaska Island: Uni.I kii Bay and
continuous Inshore waters south of
latitude 53°57’50” N.
3. Udagak Bay: waters of the bay from
a line extending between latitude
53’44’32”N. longitude 1ti6°19’14”W
and latitude 53°44’04”N, longitude
166°18’32”W.
4. Ward Cove.
5. Any waterbody included in ADEC’s
CWA § 305(b) report or CWA § 303(d)
list of waters which axe “impaired” by
seafood processor discharges or “water
quality-limited” for dissolved oxygen or
residues (i.e., floating solids, debris,
sludge, deposits, foam or scum).
D. Designated Fish Processing Center
This l ermlt does not authorize the
discharge of pollutants to receiving
waters adjacent to the City of Kodiak.
including Kodiak Harbor. St. Paul
Harbor, Near Island Channel, Women’s
Bay and Woody Island Channel.
£ Waiver
An owner or operator of a seafood
processing facility may request a waiver
to discharge under this Permit in the
excluded areas listed in Parts Ifl.A.-D.
above. In order to obtain a waiver to
discharge in one or more of these
excluded areas, an applicant must
submit a timely and complete request
for a waiver in accordance with the
requirements listed in Part IV.D. below.
Pie-existing. permanent onshore siting
-------
34994
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 128 / Wednesday. July 5. 1995 I Notices
may be considered lustificatlon for a
waiver.
A waiver will not be granted until
after consultation between EPA, ADEC
and other appropriate goveroment
offices to determine that the proposed
discharge will comply with applicable
State and federal laws and regulations
and State-approved Coastal Zone
Management Plans.
IV. Application To B. Permitted Under
This General NPDES Permit
In order to be authorized to discharge
any of the pollutants set out in Part U
above to waters of the United States
under this general NPDES permit, one
must apply for coverage under this
Permit. This general NPDES permit does
not authorize any discharges from
facilities that have not applied for and
received permission to discharge under
this Permit from EPA.
A. Submittal of a Notice of Intent to be
Covered Under This Genervi NPDES
Permit
An applicant wishing authorization to
discharge under this Permit shall submit
a timely and complete Notice of Intent
(NO!) to EPA and ADEC in accordance
with the requirements listed below. A
qualified applicant will be authorized to
discharge under this Permit upon its
certified receipt from EPA of written
noUflcaUon of inclusion and the
assignment of an NPDES permit
number.
EPA may require any discharger
applying for coverage under this general
NPDES permit to apply for and obtain
an individual NPDES permit in
accordance with Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Vol. 40, Section
122.28(b)(3).
A permittee authorized to 4ischazge
under this Permit shall submit to EPA
and ADEC an updated and amended
NO! when there is any material change
in the information submitted within its
original NO!.
In compliance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
the Office of Management and Budget
has approved the information in a
Notice of Intent for permit application
COMB No. 2040-0086).
A permittee shall submit Its Notice of
Intent to be covered under this general
NPDES permit to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10. NPDES Compliance (WI)-.
135), 1200 Sixth Avenue. Seattle,
Washington 98101
and, to the responsible ADEC office at
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation. Southeastern Regional
Office. 410 WIlloughby Avenue. Suite
105. Juneau. Alaska 39801
Attention: Wastewater Program
AI .fr . Department of Environmental
Conservation. Southeentral Regional
Office, 3601 C Street, Suite 1334.
Anchorage, Alaska 99503, Attention:
Wastewatar Program
or
ft kafr Department of Environmental
Conservation. Western District Office.
Unalaska Field Office, P.O. Box 1071.
Unalaska. Alaska 99692, Attention:
Wastewater Program
B. What constitutes a “timely” submittal
of a Notice of Intent
1. A new permittee seeking coverage
under this Permit shall submit an NO!
at least 60 days prior to commencement
of operation and discharge.
2. An existing permittee authorized to
discharge under the general NPDES
permit for seafood processors. effective
for the perIod October 30, 1989, through
October 31. 1994, should submit an NO!
at least 60 days prior to the expiration
of that permit and shall submit an NO!
no later than 60 days after the effective
date of this Permit.
3. An mastlng permittee authorized to
discharge under an individual NPDES
permit and applying for authorization to
discharge pollutants under this Permit
should submit an NO! at least 60 days
prior to the desired date of authorization
to discharge under this Permit and at
least 180 days prior to the expiration
date of the Individual NPDES permit.
C. What Constitutes a “Complete”
Submittal of a Notice of Intent
1. Permit Information
An NO! shall include any NPDES
number(s) currently or previously
assigned to the facility and the ADEC
seafood processor license number.
2. Owner Information
An NO! shall include the name and
the complete address and telephone
number of the owner of the facility and
the name of its duly authorized
representative. If a facsimile m hIne Is
available at this address, it Is useful to
provide a FAX number.
3. Company information
a. A NO! shall include the name and
the complete address and telephone
number of the company operating the
facility and the name of its duly
authorized representative. If a facsimile
machine is available at this address. it
is useful to provide a FAX number.
4. Facility Information
a. An NO! shall include the name.
address and telephone number of the
facility. If the name of the facility has
changed during the last five years. the
NO! shall Include the previous na-
ofthefacilityandthedate(s)oft l
changes. lEa facsimile Inftrlaine is
available at this address, It is useful to
provide a FAX number.
b. For nearshore and shore-based
facilities, an NO! shall include a
description of the physical location of
the facility and its accurate location in
terms of latitude and longitude with a
precision of at least 15 seconds of a
degree (.0.25 mile). In addition, the
NO! should provide the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game’s (ADFG)
Fishery Management Areas in which a
facility will operate and discharge.
The NO! shall also include an area
map of the facility and its outfall(s).
This map shall be based upon an officia
map or chart of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) or the U.S. Geologic Survey
(USGS) of a scale of resolution of from
1:20.000 to 1:65.000.
C. An NO! should include the number
of seasonal and annual employees of th
facility.
d. For floating facilities, an NO! shall
include the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
vessel number, the type. length and dat
of purchase of the vessel, and the ADFG
Fishery Management Area(s) In whieh a
facility will operate and discharge
5. FacilIty Classification
An NO! shall include the
classification(s) of the facility as one or
more of the following categories of
seafood processors.
a. Offshore seafood processor: a
processor operating and discharging
more than one (1 nautIcal mile from
shore at MLLW.
b. Neoxshore seafood processor: a
processor operating and discharging
from one (1) to one half (0.5) nautical
mile from shore at MLLW.
c. Shore-based seafood processor: a
processor operating and discharging less
than one half (0.5) nautical mile from
shore at MLLW.
6. Production Information
An NO! shall Include projected
production data based upon historical
operations and design capacity.
Production data includes an
identification ufiht process applied to
the product. the name and quantity of
the raw product(s) by species, the type
of the finished product(s), and the
maximum quantity of each raw product
which can be processed in a 24-hour
day. The NO! shall also include the
projected processing location(s) an
number of operating days by month.
the facility.
7. Receiving Water Information
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 128 / Wednesday, July 5. 1995 I Notices
34995
An NOl shall Include the name(s) of
the waterbody(ies) receiving the
discharges of the facility and the name
of any larger, adjacent receiving
waterbody.
The NO! shall include information
concerning any areas within three (3)
nautical miles which are excluded from
coverage under the Permit in Part 11!
above.
For nearshore and shore.based
processors. an NO! shall include a
bathymetric map of the receiving water
within one.(1) nautical mile of the
discharge.
8. Description of Discharge(s)
An NO! shall include the depth at
MLLW and distance from shore at
MLLW of the end of the outfall pipe at
which the effluent is discharged.
An NO! shall include information
concerning all the discharges from the
facility.
a. Sanitary wastes. The NO! shall
identify the type and capacity of the
sanitary wastewater treatment system.
b. Seafood process wastes. The NOl
shall Include a list of the number, type.
waste solids weights and wastewater
volumes of each discharge and the
maidmum quantity of process wastes
which can be produced In a 24-hour
day. Discharges should be described in
5 erms of specific seafood products
f,rocessed and component wastewaters
on a monthly basis for one year of
operation.
c. Other wastewaters. The NOl shall
include information on process
disinfectants, domestic wastewater,
cooling water, boiler water, refrigeration
condensate, transfer water, graywater,
live tank water and freshwater pressure
relief water.
9. Signatory Requirements.
All permit applications shall be
signed as follows:
a. For a corporation: by a principal
corporate officer.
b. For a partnership or sole
proprietorship: by a general partner or
the proprietor, respectively.
c. For a municipality. state, federal, or
other public agency: by either a
principal executive officer or ranking
elected official.
D. How Does an Applicant Request a
Waiver to Discharge in an Excluded
.irea Under This General NPDES Permit
An applicant who seeks a waiver of
one or more of the lequirements for
discharge location in Part Ill above must
;ubmit a timely and complete request
a waiver in accordance with the
‘Ilowing requirements.
I. A Notice of Intent to be authorized
:ti llschazge under this general NPDES
permit in accordance with the
requirements of Pails IV.A.C. above.
2. A detailed description of the
circumstances requiring discharges to
the excluded areas. This description
should address alternatives to
discharging within the excluded area.
3. A detailed description of the
nature, magnitude and duration of the
seafood processing operation and its
discharges.
4. A detailed map showing the
proposed facility location, outfall
location, receiving water bathymetry,
surrounding upland topography. and
any protected water resources, special
habitats or areas listed in Part II! above
which am located within three (3)
nautIcal miles of the site or Its outfall.
This area map of the facility and its
outfall(s) shall be based upon an official
map or chart of NOAA or USGS of a
scale of resolution from 1:20,000 to
1:65,000.
5. A description of how and why the
discharges will not cause a violation of
State water quality standards. including
antidegradatlon, in the receiving waters
(Alaska AMninietrative Code (AAC) Vol.
18, Part 701.
6. A description of how and why the
discharges will not cause a significant
degradation of the physical, chemical or
biological integrity of the receiving
water, including but not limited to
seafloor deposits of settleable residues,
shoreline deposits of residues and
increased mortality in communities of
marine life.
7. A description of how and ‘. y the
discharges will not harm or Impair the
reproduction and growth of any
threatened or endangered species within
three (3) nautical miles of the proposed
operation and discharge.
A waiver will not be granted until
after consultation between EPA, ADEC
and other appropriate government
offices to determine that the proposed
discharge will corn ply with applicable
State and federal laws and regulations
and State-approved Coastal Zone
Management Plans.
V. Categories of Permittees and
Requirements
A. Offshore Seafood Processors
(a processor operating and discharging
more than one (1) nautical mile from
shore at M1.LW)
1. Effluent Limitations and
Requirements
a. Amount of seafood process wastes.
A permittee shall not discharge a
volume or weight of seafood process
wastes on a daily or annual basis which
exceeds the amount reported in the
permittee’s Notice of Intent to be
covered under this Permit.
b. Treatment and limitation of seafood
process wastes. A pernuttee shall route
all seafood process wastes through a
waste-handling system. The waste
solids discharged from the end of pipe
shall not exceed one half (0.5) inch in
any dimension.
c. Scupper and floor drain wastes. A
p.rmlttee shall route all seafood process
wastes from scuppers and floor drains
through a waste-handling system. The
waste solids discharged from the end of
pipe shall not exceed one half (0.5) inch
In any dimension.
d. Sanitary wastes. A permittee shall
route all sanitary wastes through a
sanitary waste system that meets the
applicable Coast Guard pollution
control standards then in effect (33 ‘R
part 159: “Marine sanitation devices”).
Nonfunctioning and undersized systems
are prohibited.
e. Other wastewaters. A permfttee
shall not discharge any other such
wastewaters that contain foam, floating
solids, grease, or oily wastes which
produce a sheen on the water surface.
nor wastes which deposit residues
which accumulate on the shoreline or
sea floor. The incidental foam and scum
produced by discharge of seafood
transfer water must be minimi ad to the
extent practicable as described in the
best management practices plan of Part
VI.A. Wastewaters which have not had
contact with seafood process wastes are
not required to be discharged through
the seafood process waste-handling
system.
f. State water quality standards (18
AAC Part 70). Discharges shall not
violate Alaska Water Quality Standards
for floating or suspended residues,
dissolved oxygen, oil and grease. focal
coilform. pH, temperature, color,
turbidity, and total residual chlorine
beyond the mi dng zone. For the
purposes of offshore seafood processors.
the mixing zone shall be measured as
three hundred (300) feet radius from the
point of discharge. Discharges shall not
violate Alaska Water Quality Standards
for settleable solid residues beyond a
one (1) acre zone of deposit.
g. Additional wastes. A permittee is
reminded of the requirement that
vessels comply with 33 CFR part 151.
(Vessels carrying oil, noxious liquid
substances, garbage, municipal or
commercial wastes, and ballast water).
h. Monitoring. A perinittee shall
monitor its processing and discharges to
the extent necessary to develop and
submit a timely and accurate annual
report.
-------
34998
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 5, 1995 / Notices
2. Best Management Practices
Requirements
During the term of this Permit all
pennittees shall operate in accordance
with a Best Management Practices Plan
as described In Part VI.A. below.
3. Annual Reporting Requirements
During the term of this Permit all
pennittees shall prepare and submit an
accurate and timely annual report of
noncompliance, production, discharges
and process changes as described in Part
VLB. below.
B. Newshore Seafood Processors
(a processor operating and discharging
from one (1) to one half (0.5) nautical
mile from shore at ? LW)
1. Effluent Limitations and
Requirements
a. Amount of seafood process wastes.
A permittee shall not discharge a
volume or weight of seafood process
wastes on a daily or annual basis which
exceeds the amount reported in the
permittee’s Notice of Intent to be
covered under this Permit.
b. Treatment and limitation of seafood
process wastes. A permittee shall route
all seafood process wastes through a
waste-handling system. The waste
solids discharged from the end of pipe
shall not exceed one half (0.5) inch in
any dimension.
c. Scupper and floor drain wastes. A
permittee shall route all seafood process
wastes from scuppers and floor drains
through a waste-handling system. The
waste solids discharged from the end of
pipe shall not exceed one half (0.5) inch
in any dimension.
d. Sanitary wastes. A permnittee shall
route all sanitary wastes through a
sanitary waste system that meets the
applicable Coast Guard pollution
control standards then In effect (33 CFR
Part 159: “Marine sanitation devices”))
Nonfunctloning and undersized systems
are prohibited.
e. Other wastewaters. A permittee
shall not discharge any other such
wastewaters that contain foam, floating
solids. grease, or oily wastes which
produce a sheen on the water surface,
nor wastes which deposit residues
which accumulate on the shoreline or
sea floor. The incidental foam and scum
produced by discharge of seafood
transfer water must be minimized to the
extent practicable as described in the
best management practices plan of Part
VIA. Wastewaters which have not had
contact with seafood process wastes are
not required to be discharged through
the process waste-handling system.
1. Residues. A permittee shalt not
discharge seafood sludge. deposits.
debris. scum, floating solids, oily wastes
or foam which alone or in combination
with other substances
(1) make the water unfit or unsafe for
use in aquacultuze. water supply.
recreation, growth and propagation of
fish. sheilfith, aquatic life and wildlife,
or the harvesting and consumption of
raw mollusks or other raw aquatic life:
(2) cause a leaching of deleterious
substances;
(3) cause a film, sheen, emulsion or
scum on the surface of the water:
(4) cause a scum, emulsion, sludge or
solid to be deposited on the adjoining
shorelines; or
(5) cause a scum, emulsion, sludge or
solid to be deposited on the bottom.
g. State water quality standards (18
AAC Part 70). Discharges shall not
violate Alaska Water Quality Standards
for floating or suspended residues,
dissolved oxygen. oil and grease. focal
coliform, pH, temperature, color..
turbidity, and total residual chlorine
beyond the mixing zone. For the
purposes of nearshore seafood
processors, the mixing zone shall be
measured as two hundred (200) feet
radius from the point of discharge.
Discharges shall not violate Alaska
Water Quality Standards for sattleable
solid residues beyond a zone (1) acre
zone of deposit.
h. Discharge pipe location, A
permittee shall discharge its
wastewaters at a point at least three (3)
feet below the sea surface.
1. Additional wastes. A parmittee is
reminded of the requirement that
vessels comply with 33 CFR part 151
(“Vessels carrying oil, noxious liquid
substances, garbage. municipal or
commercial wastes, and ballast water”).
j. Monitoring. A permnittee shall
monitor its processing and discharges to
the extent necessary to develop and
submit a timely and accurate annual
report and to detect and minimize
occurrences of noncompliance.
2. Best Management Practices
Requirements
During the terre of this Permit all
permittees shall operate in accordance
with a Best Management Practices Plan
as described in Part VIA, below.
3. Annual Reporting Requirements
During the term of this Permit all
permittees shall prepare and submit an
accurate and timely annual report of
noncompliance, production, discharges
and process changes as described in Part
‘/1.8. below.
4. Seafloor Monitoring Requirements
During the term of this Permit all
permittees classified as riearshore
floating seafood processors an 4
discharging to receiving watem
depths of less than twenty (2O ao
at a fixed position for more than say.
(7) days within a reporting year shal
conduct a seafloor monitoring progr;
as described in Part V1.C. below. A
“fixed position” refers to a circular
anchorage area of radius equal to on
quarter (0.25) nautical mile.
5. Sea Surface and Shoreline Monito
Requirements
During the term of this Permit all
permittees classified as nearshore
floating seafood processors shall
conduct a daily sea surface and a
weekly shoreline monitoring prograir
described below in Part VI.D. below.
C. Shore-based Seafood Processors
(a processor operating and dischargin
less than one half (0.5) nautical mile
from shore at MLL.W)
1. Effluent Limitations and
Requirements
a. Amount of seafood process wastc
A permittee shall not discharge a
volume or weight of seafood process
wastes on a daily or annual basis whic
exceeds that reported in the permittee
Notice of Intent to be covered ur ‘E
Permit.
b. Treatment and limitation of seafo’
process wastes. A permittee shall routi
all seafood process wastes through a
waste-handling system. The waste
solids discharged from the end of pipe
Shall not exceed one half (0.5) inch in
any dimension.
C. Scupper and floor drain wastes. A
perinittee shall route all seafood proce
wastes from scuppers and floor drains
through a waste-handling system. The
waste solids discharged from the end o
pipe shall not exceed one half (0.5) Inc.
In any dimension.
d. Sanitary wastes. A permnittee shall
route all sanitary wastes through a
sanitary waste treatment system.
Nonfunctloning and undersized system
are prohibited.
Sanitary wastes must be either:
(1) DIscharged to a shore-based septic
system or a municipal wastewater
treatment system,
(2) Treated prior to discharge to meet
the secondary treatment limitations for
biochemical oxygen demands (BOD 5 )
and total suspended solids (TSS) of 60
mg/I daily maximum. 45 mg/I weekly
average, and 30 mg/I monthly average.
or,
(3) Ifs USGC-llcensed vessel. Ira
prior to discharge by a sanitary waste
system that meets the applicable Coast
Guard pollution control standards then
-------
Federal Register / VoL 60, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 5, 1995 / Notices
34997
n effect (33 FR part 159: “Marine
anitation devices”J.
e. Other wastewaters. A perinittee
shall not discharge any other such
vastewatera that contain foam, floating
solids. grease. or oily wastes which
produce a sheen on the water surface.
nor wastes which deposit residues
which accumulate on the shoreline or
sea floor. The incidental foam and scum
produced by discharge of seafood
transfer water must be minimi,iicj to the
extent practicable as described In the
best management practices plan of Part
VI.A. Wastewaters which have not had
contact with seafood process wastes are
not required to be discharged through
the process waste-handling system.
1. Residues. A persuittee shall not
discharge seafood sludge, deposits,
debris. scum. floating solids, oily wastes
or foainwhich alone or In combination
with other substances
(1) make the water unfit or unsafe for
use in aquaculture, water supply.
recreation, growth and propagation of
fish, shellfish, aquatic life and wildlife,
or the harvesting and consumption of
raw mollusks or other raw aquatic life:
(2) cause a leaching of deleterious
substances;
(3) cause a film, sheen, emulsion or
ccum on the surface of the water
(4) cause a scum, emulsion, sludge or
solid to be deposited on the adjoining
shorelines: or
(5) cause a scum, emulsion, sludge or
solid to be deposited on the bottom.
g. State water quality standards (18
AAC Part 70). Discharges shall not
violate Masks Water Quality Standards
for floating or suspended residues,
dissolved oxygen. oil and grease. fecal
coliform. pH. temperature, color.
turbidity. and total residual chlorine
beyond the mixing zone. For the
purposes of shore-based seafood
processors. the mi dng zone shall be
measured as one hundred (100) feet
radius from the point of discharge.
Discharges shall not violate M k
Water Quality Standards for settleable
solid residues beyond a one (1) acre
zone of deposit.
h.Dischazge pipe location. A
permittee discharging to marine water
shall discharge its wastewaters at a
point at least ten (10) feet below the
surface of the receiving water. A
permittee discharging to fresh water
shall discharge its wastewaters at least
three (3) feet below the surface of the
receiving water. An applicant may
request a waiver to this condition by
‘rovidlng a description of the
Lrcumstances which make this
condition onerous and unnecessary to
the protection of State water quality
standards.
I. Monitoring. A perrnittee shall
monitor Its processing and discharges to
the extent necessary to develop and
submit a timely and accurate annual
report and to detect and mint ni
occurrences of noncompliance.
2. Best Management Practices
Requirements
During the term of this Permit all
permittees shall operate in accordance
with a Best Management Practices
(BMP) Plan as described in Part VIA.
below.
3. Annual Reporting Requirements
During the term of this Permit all
permittees shall prepare and submit an
accurate and timely annual report of
noncomplbtnrR. production, discharges
and process changes as described in Part
VLB. below. -
4. Seafloor Monitoring Requirements
During the term of this Permirall
permittees r)ss çI fled as shore-based
seafood processors and discharging to
receiving waters of depths of less than
twenty (20) fathoms at a fixed position
for more than seven (7) days within a
reportIng year shall conduct a seafloor
monitoring pro am as described In Part
VLC. below.
5. Sea Surface and Shoreline Monitoring
Requirements
During the term of this Permit all
permittees classified as shore-based
seafood processors shall conduct a daily
sea surface and daily shoreline
monitoring program as described below
in Part VLD. below.
VI. Specific Waste Minimization and
Monitoring Requirements
A. Best Management Practices Plan
1. ApplicabIlity
During the term of this Permit all
permittees shall operate in accordance
with a Best Management Practices
(BMP) Plan.
2. Implementation
A pernrlttee shall develop and
implement a BMP Plan within 18
months of the date of that permittee’s
authorization to discharge under this
Permit.
3. Purpose
Through Imp lementatlon of a BMP
Plan a permittee shall prevent or
mIniTlIi7 the generation and discharge
of wastes and pollutants from the
facility to the waters of the United
States. Pollution should be prevented or
reduced at the source or recycled in an
environmentally safe manner whenever
feasible. Disposal of wastes Into the
environment should be conducted In
such a way as to have a n inlrnal
environmental Impact.
4. ObjectIves
A permittee shall develop its BMP
Plan consistent with the following
objectives.
a. The number and quantity of wastes
and pollutants shall be qninimi,ad by a
permittee to the extent feasible by
managing each effluent waste stream in
the most appropriate tanner.
b. Any Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) shall ensure proper
operation and maintenance of the
facility.
c. Evaluations for the control of
wastes and pollutants shall include the
foilowing.
(1) Each facility component or system
shall be e mined fonts waste
TninlTntentlon opportunities and its
potential for causing a release of
significant amounts of pollutants to
receiving waters due to the failure or
improper operation of equipment. The
mami nation shall include all normal
operations, Including raw material and
product storage areas, in-plant
conveyance of product. processing and
product handling areas, loading or
unloading operations, spillage or leaks
from the processing floor and dock, and
sludge and waste disposaL
(2) Equipment shall be examined for
potential failure and any resulting
overflow of wastes and pollutants to
receiving waters. Provision should be
made for emergency measures to be
taken in such an event.
5. Requirements
The BMP Plan shall be consistent
with the purpose and objectives in Parts
VLB.3.-4. above.
a. The B?fl’ Plan shall be documented
In narrative form, shall Include any
necessary plot plans. drawings or maps.
and shall be developed in accordance
with good engin ring practices. The
BMP Plan shall be organized and
written with the following structure:
(1) Name and location of the facility;
(2) Statemect of BMP po cy;
(3) Materials accounting of the inputs.
processes and outputs of the facility;
(4) Risk identification and assessment
of pollutant discharges;
(5) Specific management practices
and standard operating procedures to
achieve the above objectives, including,
but not limited to,
(a) the modification of equipment,
facilities, technology, processes and
procedures. and
(b) the improvement in management,
Inventory control, materials handling or
-------
34998
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 128 I Wednesday. July 5, 1995 / Notices
general operational phases of the
facility;
(8) Good housekeeplng
(7) Preventative maintanAnrr.
(8) Inspections and records; and
(9) EmpLoyee tra1nfng
b. The 5L ’W Plan shall include the
following provisions concerning its
review!
(1) Be reviewed by the facility
manager and appropriate staff; and
(2) Include a statement that the above
review has been completed and that the
BMP Plan fulfills the requirements set
forth in this Permit. The statement shall
be certified by the dated signature of the
facility manager.
Documentation
A permittee shall submit to EPA
written certification, signed by a
principal officer or a duly appointed
representative of the permittee, of the
completion and implementation of its
BhW Plan. A permittee shall maintain a
copy of its BMP Plan at its facility and
shall make the plan available to EPA or
ADEC upon request. All offices of a
permittee which are required to
maintain a copy of this Permit shall also
maintain, a copy of the BMP Plan.
7. BMP Plan Modification
A permittee shall amend the BMP
Plan whenever there is a change in the
facility or in the operation of the facility
which materially increases the
generation of pollutants and their
release or potential release to the
receiving waters. A permittee shall also
amend the Plan, as appropriate, when
facility operations covered by the BMP
Plan change. Any such changes to the
BMP Plan shall be consistent with the
objectives and specific requirements
listed above. All changes in the BMP
Plan shall be reviewed by the facility
manager.
a. Modification for Ineffectiveness
At any time, if a BMP Plan proves to
be ineffective in achieving the general
objective of preventing and minimizing
the generation of pollutants and their
release and potential release to the
receiving waters and/or the specific
requirements above, this Permit and/or
the BMP Plan shall be subject to
modification to incorporate revised
BMP requirements.
a Annual Report
1. Applicability
During the term of this Permit all
permittees shall prepare and submit a
camplete, accurate and timely annual
report of noncompliance, production.
d ah irges and process changes to EPA
and ADEC.
In compliance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq.
the Office of Management and Budget
has approved the Information in an
annual report for complIance
em... maflt (0MB No. 2040-0110).
2. Purpose and Objectives
The annual report serves to inform the
regulatory agencies of the use and
potential degradation of public water
resources by facilities discharging
pollutants to these receiving waters
under this Permit. The parinittee shall
provide the following Information.
(1) Verification of the perinittee’s
NPDES permit number, facility owner.
facility operator, name of the facility or
vessel, mailing address, telephone
number and facsimile number.
a. A summary of periods of
noncompliance with any of the
requirements of this Permit between
January 1st through December 31st of
the previous year, the reasons for such
noncompliance, the steps taken to
correct the problem and prevent further
occurrences.
b. A summary of information of
production and discharge during the
previous year. including
(ii Dates of operation by month.
(2) Type and amount (Ibs) of raw
product per month.
(3) Type and amount (Ibs) of finished
product per month.
(4) Type and amount (Ibs) of
discharged residues per month, and
(5) Location of discharge (name of
receiving water(s)). If a floating
processor operating and discharging
within three miles of shore for a
contindous 24-hour period or more, the
name of the receiving water(s and the
latitude and longitude, the date and the
depth of the discharge location(s).
c. A statement of any changes to a
perinittee’s Notice of Intent to be
covered under this Permit (especially
process changes. locations and
production levels).
3. Signatory Requirements
A permittee shall ensure that the
annual report Is signed by a pnncipal
officer or a duly appointed
representative of the permittee.
4. Submittal
A perrnittee shall submit its annual
report by lanuary 31st of the year
following each year of operation and
discharge under this Permit. A
perinittee shall submit its annual report
to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10, NPDES Compliance (WD-.
135). 1200 Sixth Avenue. Seattle.
Washington 98101
and, to the responsible ADEC
Alaska Department of Envlronm. ., f
Conservation. Southeastern Regions
Office. 410 WIlloughby Avenue, Sm
105. Juneau, Alaska 99801. Attentioi
Wastewater Program
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation. Southcentral Regiona
Office, 3601 C Street, Suite 1334.
Anchorage. Alaska 99503, Attention
Wastewater Program
or
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Western District Office
Unalaska Field Office. P.O. Box 1071.
Unalaska. Alaska 99692. Attention:
Wastewater Program
Seafloor Monitoring Requirements
1. Applicability
During the term of this Permit all
permiuees classified as shore-based or
nearshore seafood processors and
discharging to receiving waters of
depths of less than twenty (20) fathoms
at a fixed position for more than seven
(7) days shall conduct a seafloor
monitoring program. A ‘ fixed position”
refers to a circular anchorage area of
radius equal to one quarter (0.25)
nautical mile.
2. Purpose
A permittee shall conduct a seafloor
monitoring program to determIne
compliance with the Alaska water
quality standards for settleable residues
In marine waters. Alaska Administrative
Code Part lB § 70.020 states that
“(settleable residues) shall not•
cause a sludge, solid, or emulsion to be
deposited• on the bottom.”
ADEC has authorized a zone of
deposit of up to a mardmum area of one
(1) acre for facilities permitted under
this Permit in accordance with 18 AAC
§ 70.033.
3. Objective
The seafloor monitoring program shall
determine the areal extent (in square
feet) of the continuous deposit of
sludge, solid or emulsion, any of which
is one-half inch or thicker, on the
bottom that persists throughout the year.
a. Monitoring shall provide an
accurate estimate of the area of the
discharge waste pile of settleable
residues which persists throughout the
year. It is recommended that such
persistence can be determined by
surveying the waste pile generated
during the previous year prior to the
recommencement of discharge.
b. Monitoring shall provide a
determination of the outer boundary of
the area of the discharge waste pile. It
is recommended that such precision
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 5, 1995 I Notices
34999
i require a visual, photographic or
ideo assessment.
. . Schedule
. permittee shall develop and
znpleiiieflt a monitoring program to
Survey the area of its discharge waste
pile during the first full year of coverage
uf its facility under this Permit.
riered Monitoring
The monitoring program shall be
tiered in levels of increasing complexity
which are determined by the area of the
discharge waste pile as assessed in
previous seafloor monitoring surveys.
Tier one survey. A permittee shall
develop and implement a monitoring
program to survey the area of its
discharge waste pile’ during the first full
year of the facility’s coverage under this
Permit. 11 a perrnittee has relocated its
discharge pipe during the preceding
year of operation and discharge. has
added a new production line, or has
increased production over the
production of the year of the previous
seafloor monitoring survey by more than
25%, then a perznittee shall develop and
implement a monitoring program to
survey the area of its discharge waste
pile during the current year of the
facility’s coverage under this Permit.
a. The tier one bottom survey shall be
conducted along two transects. The
principal transect shall be oriented
along the maximum horizontal
dimension of the waste pile (“the
length”). The second transect (“the
width”) shall be perpendicular to the
principal transect, and shall cross it at
the point where the waste pile is widest
in that direction. The survey shall
record and report the measurements of
the distances of each transect under
which any continuous part of the waste
pile occurs.
WNO 0004
BIUJNO COOE 1640-60-C
b. Tier two survey. If a permittee has
concluded from its seafloor monitoring
survey of the last previous year of
Dperation and discharge that its waste
nile is greater than one half of an acre
a size (21.780 sq. ft.) and less than
!iree quarters of an acre in size (32.670
q. ft.), then a permittee shall develop
md implement a monitoring program to
;urvey the area of its discharge waste
pile during the current year of its
facility’s coverage under this Permit.
The tier two bottom survey shall be
conducted along four transects. The
principal transect shall be onented
along the maximum horizontal
dimension of the waste pile (“the
length”). The second transect (“the
width”) shall be perpendicular to the
principal transect, and shall cross it at
the point where the waste pile is widest
in that direction. The remaining two
transects shall pass through the point
where the first two transects intersect,
and shall be at 45 degree angles to the
first two transects. The survey shall
record and report the measurements of
the distances of each transect under
which any continuous part of the waste
pile occurs.
-------
35000
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 128 / Wednesday, July 5, 1995 I Notices
SLUNG coos IS IS -C
C. Tier three survey. If a permittee has
determined in its seafloor monitoring
program of the last previous year of
operation and discharge that its waste
pile is equal to or greater than three
quarters of an ace in size (32.670 sq.
ft.), then a permittee shall develop and
implement a monitoring program to
survey the area. of its discharge waste
pile during the current year of its
facility’s coverage under this Permit.
The tier three bottom survey shall be
conducted along four transects. The
principal transect shall be oriented
along the maximum horizontal
dimension of the waste pile (“the
length”). The second transect (“the
width”) shall be perpendicular to the
principal transect, and shall aoss it at
the point where the waste pile is widest
in that direction. The remaining two
transects shall pass through the point
where the first two transects intersect,
and shall be at 45 degree angles to the
first two transects. The survey shall
include measurements of the distances
from the point where the transects
Intersect to the edge of the waste p11
each end of each transect. The surve
shall also include measurements of the
thickness of the waste pile at the point
where the transects intersect, and at the
eight points that are half way between
the intersection point and the edge of
the waste pile at each end of each
transect
SL G COOS & ier
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 1Z8 / Wednesday, July 5, 1995 / Notices
35001
mLLmo
6. Monitoring Report
A permittee shall submit a brief report
the seafloor monitoring survey which
scribes the methods and results of the
survey. The description of the methods
shall include at least the name, address
and phone number of the surveyor, the
date of the survey and the observational
method and equipment used in the
survey. The description of the results
shall include at least the required
dimensions and estimated area of the
waste pile and a map of the
configuration of the waste pile in
relation to the discharge pipe and the
bathymetry of the seafloor.
The area of the wastepile may be
calculated by treating it as the sum of
the areas of two parabolas which are
joined at a common base (the lwidth )
and which have heights that together
equal the “length” of the waste pile. An
approximation of the area of the waste
pile is provided by the equation.
Area = (width length) (2/3)
A permittee shall submit a report of
the monitoring program to EPA and
ADEC on or before January 31st of the
year following the survey. It is
recommended that this report be
submitted with the Annual Report.
7. Signatory Requirements
A permittee shall ensure that the
onitoring report is signed by a
principal officer or a duly appointed
representative of the perinittee.
Modification of Monitoring Program
The monitoring program may be
modified If EPA and ADEC determine
that It is appropriate. A modification
may be requested by a permittee. The
modified program may include changes
in survey (1) statIons, (2) tImes, (3)
parameters or (4) methods.
Request for a Waiver
A permittee may request a waiver of
the seafloor monitoring requirements. A
request for a waiver must provide a
detailed description of the
circumstances supporting a waiver of
monitoring and a demonstration that the
discharge meets the Alaska water
quality standard for settleable solid
residues.
Requirement to Apply for an Individual
Permit
EPA. in consultation with ADEC, may
require a permittee to apply for an
individual NPDES permit if the seafloor
monitoring program indicates a
probable violation of the Alaska water
quality standards for settleable residues
in marine waters.
D. Sea Surface and Shoreline
Monitoring Requirements
1. Applicability
During the term of this Permit all
permittees classified as shore-based or
nearshore seafood processors and
discharging within one (1) nautical mile
of shore at MLLW shall conduct a sea
surface and shoreline monitoring
program.
2. Purpose
A permittee shall conduct a sea
surface and shoreline monitoring
program to determine compliance with
the Alaska water quality standards for
floating residues in marine waters.
Alaska Administrative Code Part 18
§ 70.020 states that
“(floating solids, debris, foam and scum)
shall not• * ‘cauae a film, sheen, or
discoloration on the surface of the water
or cause a sludge, solid, or emulsion
to be deposited upon adjoinmg
shorelines.”
3. Objectives
The sea surface and shoreline
monitoring program will provide
periodic assessments as defined in the
above categories of operation during
periods of operation and discharge. The
monitoring of the sea surface shall
record the incidence of occurrence and
estimate the area! extent of contiguous
films, sheens, or mats of fn rn within a
three hundred (300) foot radius of the
end of the outfall(s) and, in the case of
shore-based facilities, within a one
hundred foot distance of the seaward
physical boundary of the facility (e.g..
docks and piers). The monitoring of the
shoreline shall record the total number
f days for which observations were
. ‘nade and the incidence of occurrence
and estimated areal extent of deposits of
/
Lange
/
T4
-------
35002
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 5, 1995 / Notices
seafood waste sludge. solids, or
emulsions upon the adjacent shorelines.
a. Monitoring shall provide an
accurate identification of the occurrence
of these pollutants on the surface of the
water or upon the shoreline.
b. Monitoring shall estimate the
area(s) of occurrence of these pollutants
with a precision of ±25%.
4. Schedule
A pernuttee shall conduct a sea
surface and shoreline.monitoring
program during each year of coverage
under the permit.
5. Monitoring Report
A permittee shall submit a brief report
of the monitoring survey which
describes the methods and results of the
survey. The description of the methods
shall include at least the name, address
and phone number of the surveyor(s),
the observational method and
equipment used in the survey, and the
point(s) of observation. The report of
positive observations shall include the
date and time of observation, an
estimate of the area of scum, sheen, film
or foam on the sea surface, and/or the
area of sludge. solids, emulsion or scum
deposited on the shoreline.
A permittee shall submit the report to
EPA and ADEC on or before January
31st of the year following the survey. It
is recommended that this report be
submitted with the annual report of
production and effluent monitoring.
8. SIgnatory Requirements
A perrnittee shall ensure that the
monitoring report is signed by a
principal officer or a duly appointed
representative of the permittee.
7. Modification of Monitoring Program
The monitoring program may be
modified if EPA and ADEC determine
that It is appropriate. A modification
may be requested by a permittee. The
modified program may include changes
In survey (1) stations, (2) times or (3)
parameters.
8. Request for a Waiver
A permittee may request a waiver of
the sea surface and shoreline monitoring
requirements. A request for a waiver
must provide a detailed description of
the circumstances supporting a waiver
of monitoring and a demonstration that
the discharge meets the Alaska water
quality standard for residues. Individual
monitoring days may be waived due to
conditions (e.g., weather or sea state)
which make this monitoring hazardous
to human health and safety.
9. Requirement to Apply for an
Individual Permit
EPA, in consultation with ADEC, may
require a permittee to apply for an
individual NPDES permit If the sea
surface and shoreline monitoring
program indicates a probable violation
of the AI k wpter quality standards for
residues in marine waters.
VU. Recording and Reperthig
Requirements
A. Records Contents
All effluent monitoring records shall
bear the hand.wrltten signature of the
person who prepared them. In addition,
all records of monitoring information
Shall include:
1. the date, exact place. and time of
sampling or measurements;
2. the names of the individual(s) who
performed the sampling or
measurements;
3. the date(s) analyses were
performed;
4. the names of the individual(s) who
performed the analyses;
5. the analytical techniques or
methods used; and
6. the results of such analyses.
B. Retention of Records
A permittee shall retain records of all
monitoring information, including but
not limited to, all calibration and
maintenance records, copies of all
reports required by this Permit. a copy
of the NPDES Permit, and records of all
data used to complete the application
for this Permit, for a period of at least
five years from the date of the sample,
measurement, report or application, or
for the term of this Permit, whichever is
longer. This period may be extended by
request of the Director or ADEC at any
time.
C. Twenty.four Hour Notice of
Noncompliance Reporting
A permittee shall report the following
occurrences of noncompliance by
telephone (206—553—1846) within 24
hours from the time a permittee
becomes aware of the circumstances:
a. any discharge(s) to the receiving
waters not authorized for coverage
under this Permit Including, but not
limited to. waters described in Part III
above or listed in Appendix I below;
b. any noncompliance that may
endanger health or the environment;
c. any unanticipated bypass that
results in or contributes to an
exceedance of any effluent limitation in
this Permit;
d. any upset that results in or
contributes to an exceedance of any
effluent limitation in this Permit; or
e. any violation of a masimuin daily
discharge limitation for any of the
pollutants listed in this Perrnit.
2. A permittee shall also provi. -
written submission within five days ol
the time that a permittee becomes awai
of any event required to be reported
under subpart I above. The written
submission shall contairc
a. a description of the noncomplian
and its cause:
b. the period of noncompliance,
including exact dates and times;
c. the estimated time noncompliancE
is expected to continue if it has not beE
corrected: and
d. steps taken or planned to reduce.
eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence’ of
the noncompliance.
3. The Director may. at his sole
discretion, waive the written report on
a casebycase basis if the oral report h
been received within 24 hours by the
NPDES Compliance in Seattle,
Washington. by telephone, (206) 553—
1846.
4. Reports shall be submitted to the
addresses in Part VI.8. of this Permit.
D. Other Noncompliance Reporting
A perniittee shall report all instances
of noncompliance, not required to be
reported within 24 hours, with the
annual report.
Vm. Compliance Responsibilities
A. Dutyto Comply
A permittee shall comply with all
conditions of this Permit. Any permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation
of the Act and Is grounds for
enforcement action, for permit
termination, revocation and reissuance.
or modification, or for denial of a penn::
renewal application. A permittee shall
give reasonable advance notice to the
Direttor and ADEC of any planned
changes in the permitted facility or
activity that may result In
noncompliance with permit
requirements.
B. Penoitles for Violations of Permit
Conditions
1. Clvii and Administrative Penalties
SectIons 309(d) and 309(g) of the Act
provide that any person who violates a
permit condition implementing CWA
§301, 302. 306, 307, 308.318.01405
shall be subject to a civil or
administrative penalty, not to exceed
325.000 per day for each violation.
2. Criminal Penalties
a. Negligent violations. Section
309(c)(1) of the Act provides that ai.
person who negligently violates a
permit condition implementing CWA
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 128 / Wednesday, July 5. 1995 / Notices
35003
- 301. 302, 306, 307, 308, 318. or 405
allbepunishedbyaflneofnot Less
1 nan $2,500 nor more than $25000 per
day of violation, or by imprisonment for
not more than 1 year. or by both.
b. Knowing violations. Section
309(c)(2) of the Act provides that any
person who knowingly violates a permit
condition implementing CWA § 301.
302. 306.307. 308, 318, or 405 shall be
punished by a fine of not less than
$5 .000 nor more than $50,000 per day
of violation, or by imprisonment for not
more than 3 years. or by both.
c. Knowing endangerment. Section
309(c)(3) of the Act provides that any
person who knowingly violates a permit
condition implementing CWA § 301.
302, 303, 306, 307. 308, 318, or 405. and
who knows at that time that he thereby
pLaces another person In imminent
danger of death or serious bodily Injury,
shall, upon conviction, be subject to a
fine of not more than $250,000 or
imprisonment of not more than 15
years. or both. A person that Is an
o, nni’ittion shall be subject to a fine of
not more than $1,000,000.
d. False statements. Section 309(c)(4)
of the Act provides that any person who
‘cnowingly makes any false material
atement, representation, or
,ertlfication in any application. record,
report, plan, or other document filed or
required to be maintained under this
Act or who knowingly falsifies, tampers
with, or renders inaccurate any
monitoring device or method required
to be maintained under this Act. shall
be punished by a fine of not more than
$10,000. or by imprisonment for not
more than 2 years. or by both.
Except as provided in Permit
conditions in Part VIII.F. (“Bypass of
Treatment Facilities”) and Part VIfl.G..
(“Upset Conditions”), nothing in this
Permit shall be construed to relieve a
permittee of the civil or criminal
penalties for noncompliance.
C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity Not
a Defense
It shall not be a defense for a
permittee in an enforcement action that
it would have been necessary to halt or
reduce the permitted activity in order to
maintain compliance with the
conditions of this Permit.
D. Duty to Mitigate
A permittee shall take all reasonable
teps to mlnimi7i or prevent any
.lischarge in violation of this Permit that
has a reasonable likelihood of adversely
affacting human health or the
environment.
E. Proper Operation and Maintenance
A permittee shall at all times properly
operate and maintain all facilities and
systems of treatment and control (and
related appurtenances) that are installed
or used by a permittee to achieve
compliance with the conditions of this
Permit. Proper operation and
maintenance also includes adequate
laboratory controls and appropriate
quality assurance procedures. This
provision requires the operation of back.
up or auxiliary facilities or similar
systems only when the operation is
necessary to achieve compliance with
the conditions of this Permit.
F. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
1. Bypass not Exceeding Limitations
A permittee may allow any bypass to
occur that does not cause effluent
limitations to be exceeded, but only if
It also is for essential maintenance to
assure efficient operation. These-
bypasses are not subject to the
provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this
Part.
2. Notice
a. Anticipated bypass. If a permittee
knows in advance of the need for a
bypass. It shall submit prior notice, If
possible at least 10 days before the date
of the bypass.
b. Unanticipated bypass. A permltIee
shall submit notice of an unanticipated
bypass as required under Part V11.F.
(“Twenty-four hour notice of
noncompliance reporting”).
3. ProhibItion of Bypass
a. Bypass is prohibited, and the
Director or ADEC may take enforcement
action against a permittee for a bypass,
unless:
(1) The bypass was unavoidable to
prevent loss of life, personal injury, or
severe property damage;
(2) There were no feasible alternatives
to the bypass, such as the use of
auxiliary treatment facilities, retention
of untreated wastes, or maintenance
during normal periods of equipment
downtime. This condition is not
satisfied if adequate back-up equipment
shall have been ffistalled in the exercise
of reasonable engineering judgment to
prevent a bypass that occurred during
normal periods of equipment downtime
or preventive maintenance; and
(3) A permittee submitted notices as
required under paragraph 2 of this Part.
b. The Director and ADEC may
approve an anticipated bypass, after
considering its adverse effects, if the
Director and ADEC determine that it
will meet the three conditions listed
above in paragraph 3.a. of this Part.
C. Upset Conditions
1. Effect of an Upset
An upset constitutes an affirmative
defense to an action brought for
noncompliance with such technology-
based permit effluent limitations if a
permittee meets the req%urements of
paragraph 2 of this Part. No
determination made during
administrative review of claims that
noncompliance was caused by upset.
and before an action for noncompliance.
is final adminictrative action subject to
judicial review.
2. CondItions Necessary for a
Demonstration of Upset
To establish the affirmative defense of
upset, a permittee shall demonstrate,
through properly signed.
contemporaneous operating Logs, or
other relevant evidence that:
a. An upset occurred and that a
permittee can identify the cause(s) of
the upset;
b. The permitted facility was at the
time being properly operated;
c. A permittee submitted notice of the
upset as required under Part VILF.
(“Twenty-four hour notice of
noncompliance reporting) and
d. A permittee complied with any
remedial measures required under Part
VW.D. (“Duty to Mitigate”).
3. Burden of Proof
In any enforcement proceeding, a
permittee seeking to establish the
— occurrence of an upset has the burden
of proof.
H. Planned Changes
A permittee shall give notice to the
Director and ADEC as soon as possible
of any planned physical alterations or
additions to the permitted facility
wheneven
1. The alteration or addition to a
permitted facility may meet one of the
criteria for determining whether a
facility isa new source as determined in
40 R § 122.29(b); or
2. The alteration or addition could
significantly change the nature or
increase the quantity of pollutants
discharged. This notification applies to
pollutants that are not subject to emuent
limitations in this Permit.
A permittee shall give notice to the
Director and ADEC as soon as possible
of any planned changes in process or
chemical use whenever such change
could significantly change the nature or
increase the quantity of pollutants
discharged.
I. Anticipated Noncompliance
A permutes shall also give advance
notice to the Director and ADEC of any
-------
35004
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 5, 1995 I Notices
planned changes in the permitted
facility or activity that may result in
noncomplianee with this Permit
D C. General Pr vl.lons
A. Permit Actions
This Permit may be modified, revoked
and reissued, or terminated for cause.
The filing of a request by a permittee for
a permit modification, revocation and
reissuance, or termination, or a
notification of planned changes or
anticipated noncompliance, does not
stay any permit condition.
B. Duty to Reapply
If a permittee intends to continue an
activity regulated by this Permit after
the expiration date of this Permit, a
perinittee must apply for and obtain a
new permit. The application shall be
submitted at least 60 days before the
expiration date of this Permit.
C Duty to Provide Information
A permittee shall furnish to the
Director and ADEC. within the time
specified in the request. any information
that the Director or ADEC may request
to determine whether cause e dsts for
modifying, revoking and reissuing, or
terminating this Permit, or to determine
compliance with this Permit. A
permittee shall also furnish to the
Director or ADEC, upon request, copies
of records required to be kept by this
Permit.
D. Incorrect information and Omissions
When a perinittee becomes aware that
it failed to submit any relevant facts in
a permit application, or that it
submitted incoimct Information in a
permit application or any report to the
Director or ADEC. it shall promptly
submit the omitted facts or corrected
information.
E. Signatory Requirements
All applications, reports or
information submitted to the DIrector
and ADEC shall be signed and certified.
1. All permit applications shall be
signed as follows:
a. For a corporation: by a principal
corporate officer.
b. For a.partnership or sole
proprietorship: by a general partner or
the proprietor, respectively.
c. For a municipality, state, federal, or
other public agency: by either a
principal executive officer or ranking
erected official.
2. All reports required by this Permit
and other information requested by the
Director or ADEC shall be signed by a
person described above or by a duly
authorized representative of that person.
A person is a duly authorized
representative only if:
a. The authorization is made in
writing by a person described above and
submitted to the Director and ADEC,
and
b. The authorization specifies either
an individual or a position having
responsibility for the overall operation
of the regulated facility or activity, such
as the position of plant manager.
superintendent, position of equivalent
responsibility. or an individual or
position having overall responsibility
for environmental matters for the
company. (A duly authorized
representative may thus be either a
named individual or any individual
occupying a named position.)
3. Changes to authorization. If an
authorization under subpart 2 above Is
no longer accurate because a different
individual or position has responsibility
for the overall operation of the facility,
a new authorization satisfying the
requirements of subpart 2 must be
submitted to EPA and ADEC prior to or
together with any reports. information,
or applications to be signed by an
authorized representative.
• 4. CertIfication. Any person signing a
document under this Part shall make the
following certification:
I certify under penalty of law that this
document and all attachments were prepared
under my direction or supervision In
accordance with a system designed to assure
that qualified personnel properly gather and
evaluate the information submitted. Based on
my inquily of the person or persons who
manage the system. or hose persons directly
responsibl. for gathering the informatIon, the
information submitted is. to the best of my
knowledge and belief, true. accurate, and
complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submIttIng false
InformatIon, including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment for knowing violations.
F. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be
confidential under 40 CFR § 2, all
reports prepared in accordance with this
Permit shall be available for public
inspection at the offices of the state
water pollution control agency and the
Director and ADEC. As required by the
Act, permit applications, permits and
effluent data shall not be considered
confidential.
G. Inspection and Entiy
A permittee shall allow the Director.
ADEC. or an authorized representative
(including an authorized contractor
acting as a representative of the
Administrator), upon the presentation of
credentials and other documents as may
be required by law, to.
1. Enter upon a permittee’s pier.
where a regulated facility or acth
located or conducted, or where rec. tis
must be kept under the conditions of
this Permit;
2. Have access to and copy. at
reasonable times, any records that must
be kept under the conditions of this
Permit;
i. Inspect at reasonable times any
facilities, equipment (including
monitoring and control equipment).
practices. or operations regulated or
required under this Permit: and
4. Sample or monitor at reasonable
times, for the purpose of assuring permi
compliance or as otherwise authorized
by the Act, any substances or
parameters at any location.
H. Oil and Hazardous Substance
Liability
Nothing in this Permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
any Legal action or relieve a permuttee
from any responsibilities. liabilities, or
penalties to which a permittee is or may
be subject under SectIon 311 of the Act.
L Property Rights
The issuance of this Permit does not
convey any property rights of any sort.
or any exclusive privileges, nor do’
authorize any injury to private pro 1
or any invasion of personal rights, nor
any infringement of federal, state or
local laws or regulations.
1. Severability
The provisions of this Permit are
severable. If any provision of thIs
Permit, or the application of any
provision of this Permit to any
circumstance, is held invalid, the
application of such provision to other
circumstances, and the remainder of
this Permit, shall not be affected
thereby.
IC. Transfers
This Permit may be automatically
transferred to a new permittee if:
1. The current pennittee notifies the
Director at least 60 days in advance of
the proposed transfer date:
2. The notice includes a written
agreement between the existing and new
permittees containing a specific date for
transfer of permit responsibility.
coverage, and liability between them;
and
3. The Director does not notify the
existing permittee and the proposed
new permittee of his or her intent to
modify. or revoke and reissue the
permit.
If the notice described in subpart 3
above is not received, the transfer is
effective on the date specified in the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 128 / Wednesday. July 5, 1995 / Notices
35005
agreement mentioned In subpart 2
bove.
State Laws
Nothing in this Permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve a permittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties established pursuant to y
applicable state law or regulation under
authority preserved by Section 510 of
the Act.
M. Reopener Clause
1. This Permit shall be modified, or
alternatively, revoked and reissued, to
comply with any applicable effluent
standard or limitation issued or
approved under Sections 301(b)(2)(C)
and (1)), 304(b)(2). and 307(a)(2) of the
Act, as amended, if the effluent
standard, limitation, or requirement so
issued or approved:
a. Contains different conditions or Is
otherwise more stringent than any
condition in this Permit: or
b. Controls any pollutant or disposal
method not addressed In this Permit
This Permit as modified or reissued
under this paragraph shall also contain
any other requirements of the Act then
applicable.
2. This Permit may be reopened to
ljust any effluent limitations if future
.vater quality studies, waste load
allocation determinations, or changes In
water quality standards show the need
for different requirements.
X. Definitions and Acronyms
AAC means Alaska Administrative
Code.
ADEC means Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation.
ADFG means Alaska Department of
Fish and Came.
BMP means best management
practices.
Bypass means the intentional
diversion of waste streams from any
portion of a treatment facility (see Part
IV.C.).
CIR means the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Cooling water means once-through
non.contact cooling water.
CWA means the Clean Weter Act.
Daily discharge means the discharge
of a pollutant measured during a
calendar day or any 24.hour period that
reasonably represents the calendar day
for purposes of sampling. For pollutants
with limitations expressed in units of
mass, the doily discharge Is calculated
- the total mass of the pollutant
charged over the day. For pollutants
vith limitations expressed in other
units of measurement, the daily
discharge is calculated as the average
measurement of the pollutant over the
day.
Discharge of a pollutant means any
addition of any pollutant or
combination of pollutants to waters of
the United States from any point source.
Domestic wastes means materials
discharged from showers, sinks, safety
showers, eye-wash stations, hand.wash
stations, fish-cleaning stations, galleys,
and laundries.
EPA means the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
Excluded area means an area not
authorized as a receiving water covered
under this general NPDES permit, as
described in Part m.A—D. above and
Appendix I below.
Fixed position means to a circular
anchorage area of radius equal to one
quarter (0.25) nautical mile.
Garbage means all kinds of victual,
domestic, and operational waste,
excluding fresh fish and part thereof.
generated during the normal operation
and liable to be disposed of
continuously or periodically except
dishwater, graywater, and those
substances that ale defined or listed in
other Annexes to MARPOL 73/78.
Graywater means galley. bath and
shower wastewater.
Marine sanitation device Includes any
equipment for Installation on board a
vessel which Is designed to receive.
retain, treat, or discharge sewage. or any
process to treat such sewage.
Maximum means the highest
measured discharge or pollutant In a
wastestream during the time period of
Interest.
MLLW means mean lower low water.
mp,/l means milligrams per liter.
Mixing zone means the area adjacent
to a discharge or activity in the water
where a receiving water may not meet
all the water quality standards: wastes
and water are given an area to mix so
that the water quality standards ale met
at the mi ang zone boundaries.
Monthly overage means the average of.
daily discharges over a monitoring
month, calculated as the sum of all doily
discharges measured during a
monitoring month divided by the
number of daily discharges measured
during that month.
MSD means marine sanitation device.
NMPS means United States National
Marine Fisheries Service.
NOl means a “Notice of Intent.” that
Is. an application. to be authorized to
discharge under a general NPDES
permit.
Pollutant means dredged spoil, solid
waste, incinerator residue, filter
backwash, sewage, garbage, sewage
sludge, munitions, chemical wastes,
biological materials, radioactive
materials, beat, wrecked or discarded
equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and
industrial, municipal, and agricultural
waste discharged into water.
Sanitaiy wastes means human body
waste discharged from toilets and
urinals.
Seafood means the raw material.
Including freshwater and saltwater fish
and shellfish, to be processed, in the
form In which It Is received at the
processing plant.
Seafood process waste means the
waste fluids, organs, flash, bones.
woody fiber and chltlnous shells
produced in the conversion of aquatic
animals and plants from a raw form to
a marketable form.
Severe property damage means
substantial physical damage to property,
dAmgg to the treatment facilities which
causes them to become inoperable, or
substantial and permanent loss of
natural resources which can reasonably
be expected to ocour In the absence of
a bypass. Severe property damage does
not mean economic loss caused by
delays in production.
Sewage means human body wastes
and the wastes from toilets and other
receptacles Intended to receive or retain
body wastes.
Upset means an exceptional incident
in which there is unintentional and
temporary noncompliance with
technology-based permit effluent
limitations because of factors beyond
the reasonable control of the permittee.
An upset does not include
noncompliance to the extent caused by
operational error. improperly designed
treatment facilities, inadequate
treatment facilities, lack of preventive
maintenance, or careless or improper
operation (see Part IV.H.).
U.S.C. means United States Code.
USFWS means United States Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Water depth means the depth of the
water between hs udece and the
seafloor as measured at mean lower low
water (0.0).
Zone of deposit (ZOD) means an area
of the bottom in marine or estuarine
waters in which the Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation has
authorized the deposit of substances In
exceedence of the water quality criteria
of 18 AAC 70.020(b) and the
antidegradation requirement of 18 AAC
70.0101(c).
-------
35008
Federal Register / VoL 60. No. 128 / Wednesday. July 5, 1995 / Notices
STATE GAME REFUGES
(SGR: see Figure 1)
Anchorage Coes d SGR
Cape Newenham SGR
Creamers Field SGR
Goose Bay SGR
Izeiubek SGR ...._
McNeil River SGR ......
Meridenhall Wetlands SGR.
City of Juneau
Minto Flate SGR
Palmer Hay Flats SGR
Susitria Pats SGR
Trading Bay SGR
Yakataga SGR
STATE CR CAL HABITAT
AREAS
(SCHA; see Figure 1)
Anchor Rlver.Fit Creek
SCHA.
Clilikat River SCHA
Cinder River SCHA
Clam Gulch SOfA
Copper River Delta SCHA..
Oude Creek SCHA
Egegik SCHA
Fox River flats SCH
KathemekBaySCHA
KaigIn Island SCHA
Pilot Point SCHA
Post Maiden SCHA _____
- Port Moller SCHA
Redoubt Bay SO-tA
Tugidak Island SCHA
Willow Mountain SCHA
STATE GAME SANC-
TUARIES:
(SGA: see Figure 1)
McNeil River SGS
Stan Price SGS
Walrus Islands SGS
NATIONAL PARKS, PRE-
SERVES AND MONU-
MENTS: Adasralty Island
Nail Island, SE Alaska
Momanerit
Aniakchak Nail Monument,
Alaska Peninsula and
Preserve.
Glacier Bay Nail Park Ar-
chipelago, and Preserve.
Katn’iai Nail Perk and Pro-
serve.
Kenai Fjords Nail Preserve
Lake Clark Nail Park and
Preserve.
Misty Fiords Nail Menu-
merit
Wrangell-St. Elias Nail Petit
and Preserve.
NATIONAL WIL.DLJFE REF-
UGES:
(NWR)
Alaska Maritime NWR
Alaska Peninsula NWR
i lyofAnthorage.. . ,____...
NCooklrilet...
Chagvan Bay; S Kuslwkwin Bay
Isabella River wetlands
Goose Bay. Knik Ami N Cook lr st.
Iseirtek Lagoon; SE Bristol Bay .._.
Paint River and Kasnishak Bay
Tanana River wetlands
Knik Ami N Cook Inlet
NCooklnfet
Gon er Channel, Trading Bay
Tset River delta N Gulf of Alaska
Eastof the City of Anchor Point
Chi lkatRiver
Cinder River Delta, E Bristol Bay
CooklnIet.. ..
SE of the City of Cordova.
Dude Creek, Icy Passage
EgegikBayandEBnstolBay....,................_......
Fox River Delta, Kachernak Bay .....
Kachemak Bay
Swan Creek wetlands; Cooli Inlet
Ugasilik Bay and E Bristol Bay
Port Heiden and E Bristol Bay ...
P o rtMol lerand Nelson Lagoon
Big River wetlands, Redoubt Bay; Cock Inlet
NW Gulf of Alaska .. ..... -
Willow Creek tributaries .....,,.....,....,
Kamishak Bay: NW Cook Inlet .. . ... .. ., ..
Windfall Hasbor Seymour Canal .....
Togiak Bay; N Bristol Bay .
Dixon Hatter, Palma Bay, Lituya Bay; N Gulf of Alaska
Katmel Bay, Kinak Bay, Kukak Bay, Hallow Bay,
Kamishak Bay.
Ntáca Bay. Two Arm Bay
NcoastofCock lnlet..., ..
Bering Sea, N Gulf of Alaska
S Port Moller and S Herendeen Bay arid the coastal
waters from NE Cold Bay to Alinchak Bay.
South of the City of Good News.
City of Fajitanks.
North of the City of Anchorage.
NW ternanus of the Alaska Peninsula.
SE base of the Alaska Peninsula
NW Gastlneau Channel.
West of the City of Fairbanks.
NE of the City of Anchorage.
West of Vie City of Anchorage.
SW of the City of Anchorage.
West of Cape Yakataga.
Anchor River and Fn Creek.
North of the City of Haines.
SW of the City of PilOt Point
South of the City of Kasilof.
Copper River delta; N Gulf of Alaska.
West of the City of Gustavus,
West of the City of Egegik.
NE of the City of Homer.
Adjacent to the City of Homer.
SW Kalgin Is.
West of the City of Pilot Point.
Northcentral Alaska Peninsula.
City c i Post Moller.
West of the City of NIIdsld.
Trinity Islands, SW of Kodiak Is.
NW of the City of Palmer.
S base of Alaska Peninsula.
S Kenai Peninsula.
Chiratria Bay, Tuxedzil Bay.
Tongass Nail Forest. SE Alaska.
Aleutian Islands and Pribilof Islands.
Alaska Peninsula.
APPENDIX—CATEGORICAL LISTING OF AREAS EXCI.UOED FRoM COVERAGE UNDER GENERAL PERMIT
Excluded area
Receiving waters
Location —
ICtilk Ann, Tumagain Arm.
Nadenol monwnent
SE base of the Alaska Peninsula.
E Adnaralty Is., SE Alaska.
Walrus Is. (a.k.a. Round Is.), Crocked Is., High is..
Sumnut Is., Black Rock the Twins.
Rivers and coastal waters of Admiralty.
Aniakchak Bay, Amber Bay, South centraL
Glacier Bay, Cross Sound. North Alexander, SE Alaska.
NW of the City of Yakutat. N Gull of Alaska N Icy Bay, W Yakutat Bay.
-------
Federal Ragister / Vol. 60, No. 128 / Wednesday. July 5, 1995 I Notices
35007
APPENDIX—CATEGORICAL LISTING OF AREAS EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE UNDER GENERAL PERMI ’r—C9ntinued
Excluded area
•zembek NWR
Kenal NWR
(oduak NWR ....
Yukon Delta NWR ..
NATIONAL WILDERNESS
AREAS
(NWA: see Figure 2)
Chuck River NWA
Coronation Island NWA
Endicott River NWA
Karta NWA ....
Kootznoowoo NWA
Kuiu NWA ....._..._
Maurefle Islands NWA
Misty Fiords NWA -
Petersburg Creek NWA
Pleasant islands NWA
Russell Fiord NWA
South Baranol NWA
South Etolin NWA
South Prince of Wales 1IWA
Stikine -teCante NWA
Tebenkof Bay NWA
Tracy Ann-Fords Terms
NWA.
“srren island NWA
st Chichagof-Yakobi
• IWA.
STELLER SEA LION
ROOKERIES AND HAUL•
OUT AREAS:
(see Figures 3 and 4)
58 Federal Register 45278
NORThERN FUR SEAL
ROOKERIES:
(see Figures 5 and 6)
St. Paul Island -.
Otter Island ........
St. George Island ......... -
SEA BIRD NESTING
AREAS;
(see Figure 7)
— waters
Cold Bay. izentek Lagoon .._...... —
S Twnagain Amt N Cook Inlet -
Kiliuda Bay. Sitkalidak Strait. Ablak Bay. Siltcinak Strait,
Olga Bay, Uyak Bay. Uganik Bay; Ban Bay; W Gull
of Alaska.
Jaclcsmith Bay. Goodnews Bay. Chagvan Bay,
Hagemeister Strait. Togiak Bay. Kuhiiak Bay.
Nushagak Bay; N Bitstol Bay.
Scammon Bay. Koicechik Bay. Hooper Bay. Hazen Bay.
Baird Inlet E Benng Sea.
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA
Rivers and cv tal waters of NWA
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA
Rivers and ‘ tal waters of NWA
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA
Rivers and co iaI waters of NWA
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA
Rivers and Iv% .1al waters of NWA
Rivers and t I waters of NWA
Rivers end coastal waters of NWA
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA
Rivers and al waters of NWA
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA
SW terminus of Alaska Peninsula.
Kenai Peninsula.
Koofak Is.. Afognaic Is. and Trinity Islands.
Surrounding the City of Togiak
Yukon River delta. Kuskokwin River delta. Nunivak Is.
Tongass Nail Forest. SE Alaska.
Tongass Nail Forest, E Alaska.
Tongass Nail Forest, SE Alaska.
Tongass Nail Forest. SE Alaska.
Tongass Nail Forest, SE Alaska.
Tcngass Nail Forest, SE Alaska.
Tongass Nail Forest, SE Alaska.
Tongass Nail Forest, SE Alaska.
Tongass Nail Forest. SE Alaska.
Tongass Nail Forest. SE Alaska.
Tongass Nail Forest, SE Alaska.
Tongass Nail Forest, SE Alaska.
Tongass Nail Forest, SE Alaska.
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA Tongau.
Tongass Nail Forest, SE Alaska.
Tcrigase Nail Forest. SE Alaska.
Tcngass Nail Forest, SE Alaska.
Bering Sea.
Benng Sea.
Bering Sea.
ALASKA RIVER SEGMENTS DESIGNATED UNDER ThE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT
Alagnaic River
Alatna River
Aniakchak River
Chartey River
Chilikadrotna River
John River ..
Kobuk River
North Fork Koyukuk River
Mulchatna River
Noalak River
Salman River
linayguk River
TIikaluIa River ........._
Rivenne waters
Rivenne waters
Rivenne waters
Rivenne waters
Riverme waters
Rlvenne waters
Rivenne waters
Rivenne waters
Rivenne waters
Rlverine waters
Rlvertne waters
Riverlne waters
Rivenne waters
Nushagak.Bnstol Bay lowland.
Central Brooks Mountains Range.
Aleutian Mountains Range.
Yukon-Tanana uplands.
Central Brooks Mountains Range.
Central Brooks Mountains Range.
Central Brooks Mountains Range.
Eastern Brooks Mountains Range.
Alaska Mountains Range.
Eastern Brooks Mountains Range.
Baird Mountains
Central-eastern Brooks Mountains Range.
Southern Alaska Mountains Range
Togiak NWR
Location
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA ......... ._._... Tongass Nail Forest. SE Alaska.
Rivers and coastal waters of NWA Tongass. ._............ Nail Forest, SE Alaska.
Coastal waters
Coastal waters
AIRED OR WATER QUALITY LIMITED WATERS LISTED BY ADEC IN EIThER ITS CWA §305(b) REPORT OR §303(d) LIST
Akutan Harbor. west I Waters of the bay west of 16546’OO”W I Akutan Is.
-------
35008
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 128 / Wednesday, JuLy 5, 1995 / Notices
APPENDIX—CATEGORICAL LJSTTh1G OF AREAS EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE UNDER GENERAL PERMIT—Continued
Ca Bay
Lk k Bay
Gibson Cove
Hemng Bay
Jamestown Bay
Rowan Bay
Thom8ay...._.
Ward Cove
Recowrng waters
Watws of Utalaska Bay from the southeast pond of
M’iainiak t at Arch Rock west to the western poird
of Caoteins Bay at 53°5T46N, 1663433, west
along stare to 0ev fish Point north to the southern
tip of Hog Is., east to shore of Airnknak Is. at north.
end of aitsblp at 53’54’1FN 166’33’OrW,
sard h along the shore of Amaknak Is. to the point of
AS of the waters of the bay to the toidge separating
Itiutick Harbor and a line at the mouth of the bay be.
twea’i Arch Rock paint and the point of land at
53’52 ’45”N, 166’3413”W.
Waters of the bay from a line between 534432N.
166’19’14W and 53M43TN, 16619 ’14’W.
He.i , ,.g Say —
Jamestown Bay
Rowon Bay
Si lverBay -—
Thom8ay_
Ward Cove
Unalaska Is.
City of Kodiak.
City of Silks.
Near Cannon Is.
Kuru Is.
City of Sitica.
POW Is.
City ot Ketcliikan.
area
Unalaska Say. scu t
Location
Unalaska Is.
tjnataska Is.
u a coos eaoii
-------
I.
PT,
m
PT
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 128 / Wednesday. July 5, 1995 / Notices
‘7
Alaska Iatiooa.L Int.r.st
L.aods C wstios t
C
‘7
I 34
ssU Fiord
i tt li sz
bias
t .t aqof-Yakcbi
Y Laks dition
goor o
Tracy Ax.-?ords T ZTOr
Riv
Sorth Mr. f
Tsbsnkof My
P.tat k- uicas
Stik.tos-L onts
or atioa Island
Warns Laland
Na sL.ts IsLands
I.arta siv.r
South ZtoLLn
Misty ?iords
lorth Princ. of Wa.Lss
EN TR A
132
35010
‘I
56’
Figure 2. Locations of National Wilderness Areas.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 128 1 Wednesday, July 5, 1995 / Notices
35011
61’ 5O ’N
50 00
Figure 3. LocatIons of Steller sea lion rookeries in the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea.
-------
35012
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 128 / Wednesday , July 5, 1995 I Notices
16o.w 150
140 130
Figure 4. Locations of Steller sea lion rookeries in the Gulf of Aiaska and southeast Alaska.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 128 I Wednesday , July 5, 1995 / Notices 35013
index chart
4
A
+
N
K,IIw., $m$d
Rook•r,
PliuI.nq rod
Ezw.ct v M .ns1:
I . —
2 Lagoon
3. P4 . ”. Spo•4
4. Msoonlth
C
Figure 5. Locations of northern fur seal rookeries and haulouts on St. Paul Island, Alaska.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 128 I Wednesday . July 5, 1995 / Notices
35014
ISLAND
St. George
r—i
Village
Index chart
F .i i O avy.
1 LIUI
p. Siarava A T
Figure 8. Locations of northern fur seal rookeries and haulouts on St. George Island, Alaska.
-------
t
A
laska Seabird Colony
Catélog
J
SEABIRD COLONIES OF
ALASKA
MAP DATE—— 19 SEPT 1994
NAUTICAL MILES
SPECIES
.
COLONIES DISPLAYED HAVE >— 1.000 BIRDS
LISTED IN NPDES GENERAL PERMIT AK—G52—0000
— 1
0 100 200
.
I
1’
0’
4)
.
\ • 4 4.rht !lcL,, .
I
I
I
‘71
a
‘1
0
U’
-------
35018
Federal Re ster/ Vol. 60, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 5. 1995 / Notices
Attachment to NPDES Permit No. AK-
G52-4)000—State Consistency
Conditions For §401 Water Quality.
Certification
As Developed bye Commissioner-Level
Board and Coordinated by Alaska
Division of Governmental Coordination
(lCerry. Acting Director. ADEC. 12/23194)
Position Reporting
All floating processors operating
under this general NPDES permit,
during any calendar day that they
process and discharge waste from
processing operations inside State
waters, shall report geographic
coordinates daily to AbickiiDepaxtnient
of Environmental Conservation (ADEC).
Reports shall be submitted by telefax or
other approved communications
methods to ADEC’s Western District
Office, UI I kR Field Office. (907) 581—
1795. Reports shall be submitted once a
day when a vessel Is processing and
discharging waste under way in State.
waters and shall identify geographical
coordinates of the vessel at
commencement of discharging. When
processing within ¼ mile of the same
place for more than one day Inside State
waters, processing vessels shall report
upon the commencement of discharging
and again when discharging terminates.
A note shall be made In the first
position report that, if known, the vessel
intends to remain at that location for
more than one day, and shall provide an
estimate of the Unie to be spent at that
location. A note must be made on the
last position report that the vessel is no
longer discharging in State waters.
Reporting Requirement
Any observed violations of the
floating residues criteria of the state
water quality standards shall be
reported to the EPA and ADEC within
24 hours as provide in Section ‘ 1 1 1(F) of
the permit.
Degraded Waterliodies
Akutan laland Akutan Harbor west of
longitude 165°46’OO’ W.
Udagak Bay: waters of the bay from a
line extending between latitude
53M4 ’32”N. longitude 16619’14’W and
latitude 5344’04”N. longitude
16618’32”W.
Any waterbody Included in ADEC’s
CWA § 305(b) report or CWA § 303(d)
list of waters which are “Impaired” by
seafood processor discharges or “water
quality-limited” for dissolved oxygen or
residues (i.e.. floating solids, debris,
sludge, deposits, foam or scum).
Included are:
Gibson Cove. Kodiak, A K ID #20701-
605,
Herring Cove. Sitka. AK ID *10203-.
Jamestown Bay. Near Cannon Islan.
AK ID *10203—604,
Rowan Bay. Kuru island. AK ID
*10202—602,
Silver Bay. Slika. AK ID *10203—601.
Thorn Bay. Prince of Wales Island.
AK ID *10203—602. and
Ward Cove, Kerchikan. AK ID
*10102—601.
PribioflslandR
The coastal waters surrounding the
Pribilof Islands (out to 3 nautIcal miles)
are excluded from coverage under the
1995 general NPDES permit for seafood
processors in Alaska. Temporary
permitting provisions will be made for
rHcrhn ges to these waters while an
interagency workgroup completes a
problem Identification and evaluation
process.
As Developed by Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
HenkIns. ADEc. 4/27/95)
Authorization of Mixing Zones
Offshore processors: 300 ft. radius from
the point of discharge
Nearshore processors: 200 ft. radius
from the point of discharge
Shore-based processors: 100 ft. radius
from the point of discharge
-------
Thursday
June 29, 1995
Part il
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 110, et at.
Federal Regulatory Review; Final Rules
-------
33926 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 125 / Thursday, Iuna 29, 1995 I Rules and Regulation 3
488.1105-87 (Amended)
198. In §86.1105—87, pazagraphs(b)
and (c)(1) ale removed and reserved.
f FR . 95—15029 FIled 6—28—95: 8:45 amI
— I eses
4OCFR Parte35, 122,123,124,125,
140,141,144,14.6,148,403,405,408,
407,408,409,411,412, 417,418, 424,
426,427,428,432,435,436,443,448,
447,454, 455,457,458,460
(FRL-6223-I3
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System and Pretrealinent
Programs; State and Local Assistance
Programs; Effluent Umitallons
Guidelines and Standards; Public
Water Supply and Underground
Injection Control Programs: Removal
of Legally Obsolete or Redundant
Rules
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACT1ON: Final rule.
SJMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is today removing from
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)a
number of regulations pertsaining to its
water programs that are obsolete or
redundant Deleting the obsolete
regulations from the CFR will clarify the
legal status of these regulations for both
the regulated community and the
public. EPA is also deleting from the
CFR the maximum contkn inAnf level’
goal (“MCLG’) and maidmum
contaminant level (“MCI.”) for Tuckeir.
which have been vacated by a court In
addition, EPA is making one correction
due to a typographical error.
EFFECTiVE DATE: This final rule takes
effect on June 29. 1995.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACTI
Cynthia Puskar. Policy and Resources
Management Office (4102), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M St. SW. Washington. D.C. 20460.
(202) 260—8532.
JPFLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
L Introduction
On March 4. 1995 the President
directed all Federal agencies and
departments to conduct a
comprehensive review of the regulations
they administer and, by June 1. 1995 to
identify those rules that are obsolete or
unduly burdensome. EPA has
conducted a review of all of its rules,
including rules issued under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended (“FWPCA ’) (33 U.S.C. 1158
and 1251 et seq.) (also cited below as
the Clean Water Act or “CWA’), the
Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”) (42
U.S.C. 3001 et seq.), and the Marine
Protection, Research. and Sanctuaries
Act (also known as the Ocean Dumping
Act or “ODA”) (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).
Based on this review. EPA is today
deleting a number of FWPCA and
SDWA rules from the Code of Federal
Regulations. as set forth below. These
rules are being deleted either because
they are obsolete or because they are
redundant with other statutory or
regulatory provisions. The rules deemed
to be obsolete have expired by their own
terms or by the terms of the statute or
have been made obsolete by the
completion of the grant projects to.
which they applied, In the case of the
maximum contaminant level goal
(“MCLG”) and maximum contaminant
level (“MCI.”) for nickel. EPA is
removing those regulations from the
CFR because they have been vacated
(i.e., declared void and of no effect).by
a court. Today’s action does not make
any legally substantive changes to the
regulatory programs at issue.
Today’s removal of rules from the
CFR is not intended to affect the status
of any civil or criminal actions that were
initiated prior to June 29. 1995 or which
may be initiated in the future to redress
violations of the rules that occurred
prior to today’s action.
In addition to the regulations
addressed in today’s action. EPA’s
Office of Water has identified a number
of other regulatory previsions that may
provide opportunities for further -
streumlining beyond the deletion of
obsolete and redundant regulations
being accomplished today. The Agency
intends to address those matters in
future actions.
EL Obsolete Rules
A. Federal Water Pollution Control Ad
Rules —
40 CFR Part 35. Subpart C—Grants for
Construction of Wastewater Treatment.
Works. EPA Is deleting Part 35. Subpath
C. which comprises regulations
promulgated under Section 8 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. as
amended. Section 8 authorized EPA to
award grants to municipalities for the
construction of treatment works to
prevent the discharge of untreated or
inadequately treated sewage or other
waste into any waters. Subpart C was
made obsolete by passage of the CWA
and its implementing regulations at 40
CFR Part 35. Subparts E. I and J. as well
as completion of most of the projects
funded by Subpart C grants, which date
to the period prior to the passage of the
CWA in 1972. Any remaimng active
grants will continua to be governed by
the Subpart C regulations appi
the time the grant was awar
40 CFR Part 35. Subpart 0....
Reimbursement Giants. EP i (le “
Part 35, Subpart 0, which
regulations promulgated under .
206 of the CWA. as amended,
206 authorized EPA to award gra
municipalities for reimbuzserne 1 of ”
state or local funds used for pubft
sewage treatment works project 01 -
which construction was initiated 5I p
June 30. 1956. but before July 1, 1973,
and for which a grant was awar
under Section 8 of Public Law 84.
Subpart 0 was made obsolete by
completion of reimbursements to tl .
eligible projects. In the unlikely even .
a question regarding a section zoa
reimbursement project. the Subpan o
regulations in effect when the grant
awarded should be consulted.
Section 122.1(g). This provision
simply recites portions of the Clean
Water Act that give EPA authority ova,
NPDES-ielated matters. This languageli
superfluous and is therefore deleted by
today’s rulemaking.
Sections 122.21(mK3) and (n)(2J and
40 (YR Part 125 Subpart f—Extens iong
of Deadlines for Meeting Treatment
Requirements. CWA sections 301(i)(1)
and (2) allowed parties to seek
extensions through permit issuance or
modification of th. statutory deadlines
for meeting certain treatment
requirements. EPA implemented them
provisions in sections 122.21(n)(2) and
(zn)(3) of the regulations. Section
122.21(n)(2) allowed publicly owned
treatment works (“POTWs”) that were
experiencing delays in construction to
seek extensions of the compliance
deadlines. Section 122.21(nK2) set a
deadline of August 3. 1987 for POTWa
to apply for an extension. Section
122.21(m)(3J allowed point source
dischargers to seek their own extensions
of treatment requirement deadlines in
the event the PO’I’W into which the
- source was to discharge was
experi — dng delays in construction.
Section 122.21(m)(3) set a deadline of
January 30, 1988 for point source
dlschargers toap y for these
extensions. Becaus. both of these dates.
have passed. these two regulatory
provisions are obsolete and are deleted
by today’s rule.
In additIon. 40 CFR Part 125 Subpart
J(consisting of sections 125.90 through
125.97) set., forth the criteria for issuing
these CWA section 301(i) extensions of
time to POTWe and point source
dischargers. Because these extensions
are no longer available, this provision
too is obsolete and is deleted by today’s
rule.
-------
• i4 _
‘ a1 g gjster / Vol. 60. No. 125 / Thursday. June 29. 1995 1 Rules and Regulations 33927
125.
For Innovative
deleting Part 125.
is regulations
301(k) of the
the Clean Water
EPA to
ito any
to a NPDES
installed innovative
date to which
be extended under
wasMarth 31. 1991. The
1 ailenged in court
84—1500 (D.C. Cir.)).
ation of the statutory
the court dismissed
red EPA to vacate the
• ugt order dated June
122.21(Ifl)(4). which is
ed. is a corresponding
the time for
submitted for section
in section
July 1. 1984 as a statutory
deadline is no longer
been revised by the
lily Act. This date is
from sectioii 122.46(d).
..iekisnCe to a specific date is
that provision.
p 122.82(4)(14). 122.62(aJ(17).
I —Ca u ses for Permit
SectiOn 122.62(a)(14) Lists
(or permit modification the
to changes to sections
and (d) that EPA made
_____ we Judicial settlement.
mtdated November 18. 1981 in
oi with NRDC v.EPA. No. 80-
. S. Inn 122.82(a)(17) lists as a
bxpsrmit modification the need..
isoism to certain other regulatory
s that EPA ade in connection
settlement agreement. Section
iI(17) also sets a deadline of
24.1985 for the permittee to
q,ly th. modification. Also. section
WsI1ows minor permit
“-“n’ . to be made- without the
Psit 124 proceedIngs in order to
__the permit to certain regulatory
that were issued on September
.* 1
h h of these three cases. over five
ba,e passed since the relevant
ychanges that would be the’
Z$pernut modification, thus.
would have needed a
lSIaiiOfl to Incorporate these
I1niy changes have expired. and alt
PU’Ilnts are already subject to
iSVtsed regulatory conditions and
11150 mflothflcation (Although
expired permits may not
ressued but may currently be
‘vestrative extension. EPA
does not modify such permits see
sections 122.6 and 122.46(b)). Moreover.
the deadline in section 122.62(a)(17) in
particular to apply for permit
modifications under that provision
expired in 1985. Accordingly, these
three provisions are obsolete and ais
deleted today.
Sections 123.43(b) and 124.58.—
Copies of Draft Permits. Section
123.43(b) is a requirement for State
agencies that administer NPDES permit
programs to transmit a second copy of
draft general or proposed permits to
personnel at EPA Headquarters (under
section 123.43(a)(2). the State must
provide the first copy to the Regional
MTninl tretor). Similarly, in the case of
certain EPA.issued general permits.
section 124.58 directs the Regional
Mmanietrators to sand copies of the
draft general permits to the Deputy
Assistant Administrator for Water
Enforcement at EPA Headquarters and
gives that official an opportunity to
object to the draft permits. The EPA
Regional Office has primary
responsibility in both of these cases.
EPA believes that both of these
requirements to notify the relevant
Headquarters office in every case of a
draft or proposed permit are
unnecessary. (In addition, because of
reorganization. the two Headquarters.. -
positions referred to in these provisions
no longer eiast in any event.) Therefore
EPA is removing these regulatory
requirements (although the Region
should consult with Headquarters on
draft permits on an as needed basis).
These provisions relate only to EPA ’s
internal operating &ocedures. and
therefore they are removed today
without notice and. comment pursuant
to section 553(b)(3)(A) of the
Administrative Procedure Act.
Section 140.3(h)—Marine Sanitation
Devices. This section is no longer
necessary, since it was designed to
clarify which of the dates desaibed in
the rule between 1975 and 1980 weze
the “effective dates” for purposes of
CWA section 312(g)(1). Since all dates
desonbed in the rule have passed. there.
can be no ambiguity as to whether the’
rule is effective for purposes of section
312(g)(1).
40 CFR Part 403—Pretreatment
Regulations.
Section 403.1(c) (deadlines for
submission of category determination
requests and reports). This provision
extended certain deadlines for the
submission of requests by industrial
users (requests to determine whether
they were covered under various
pretreatment standards, variance
requests, and applications for riot/gross
adjustments) and For certain baseline
reporting requirements on the part of
industrial users. The deadlines and
these extensions have long since lapsed.
and so this provision is being deleted.
Section 403.5(f) (deadlines for
compliance with national pretreatment
standards). This provision is obsolete
because the compliance deadlines it sets
have long since lapsed.
Section 403.8(c), (d), 8’ (f)(1)(vi)(A)
(P07W pretreatment requirements). The
last sentence of § 403.8(f)(1)(vi)(A) set
deadlines for POTWs to submit requests
for approvals of modified pretreatment
programs. Because these deadlines have
lapsed. this sentence is obsolete and is
removed today. In addition, in
§ 403.8(c), EPA is removing an obsolete
a oss reference to pretreatment program
requirements in § 403.10(d) (also being
deleted today) for permits issued to
POTWs in States not authorized to act
as the approval authority. Finally.
§ 403.8(d)’, which authorizes compliance
schedules in permits to allow time for
POTWs to develop pretreatment
programs once determined necessary. is
obsolete by its terms, and so is removed
and. reserved. EPA intends to invite
comment on appropriate compliance
schedules in a future rulemaking.
Section 403.10(b). (ci and (d)
(deadlines for modifications). Section
403.10(b) is obsolete because it allowed
for an extension of time for States to
modify their NPDES programs
consistent with the 1977 amendments to
tle Clean Water Act. The 1977
amendments to the Clean Water Act
required modification of any previously
approved State NPDES program within
one year (or two years if legal authority
needed to be enacted) to include a State
pretreatment program. The extension
has lapsed. Section 403.10(d) provided
for POTW permit modification after
approval of State program modifications
for pretreatment Any permits that
wouldbe affected by section 403.10(d)
have long since been issued and
expired, thus, modification is
unnecessary. Section 403.10(c)
previously provided that failure of a
State to seek approval of a State
Pretreatment Program as provided in
403.10(1)) and the failure of an approved
State to admini ter its State
Pretreatment Program in accordance
with requirements of section 403.10
constituted grounds for withdrawal of
NPDES program approval under Clean
Water Act section 402(c)(31. Section
403.10(c) is also revised ifi today s rule
simply by deleting the reference to
obsolete § 403.10(b) and retaining the
provision that failure to comply with
the 1977 CWA NPDES program
modification obligation is a ground for
of
-------
33928 Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 125 I Thursday. June 29. 1995 I
withdrawal of the State’s NPDES
program.
Section 403.12(b) (baseline reporting.
requirements for industrial users). Thern
second sentence of section 403.12(bl
allowed an Industrial User of a P01W
to forego resubmisslon of baseline
monitoring reports where reports had
been submitted previously according to
a now-defunct reporting regulation. This
regulatory provision had allowed for
transition to new reporting
requirements. The sentence is now
obsolete because the Lime for any such
reporting required under section 403.11
has lapsed and, in the event any new
pretreatment standards are established
in the future. Industrial Users would not
be able to use this provision because
they would not have been required to
submit the earlier reports.
Section 403.13(g)f2Xi) (deadlines for
variances from pretreatment standards).
Section 403.13(g)(2)(i) is obsolete
because it established a July 3. 1989,
deadline for submission of requests for
variances from categorical Pretreatment
Standards issued by EPA prior to
February 4. 1987. That deadline has
now lapsed.
Part 403. Appendix B (list of priority
pollutants). Appendix B lists the 65
priority pollutants developed pursuant
to the Consent Demee in Notuml
Resources Defense Council. Inc. v.
Costle. This list is now redundant with
the list of priority pollutants published
at 40 CFR § 401.15. Regulations in Part
403 do not otherwise refer to Appendix
B.
Part 403 Appendix C (list of industrial
categories). Appendix C Lists the
industnal categories subject to national
categorical pretreatment standards
pursuant to the Consent Decree in.
Natural Resources Defense Council. Ine
v. Castle. The list is uicornplete and
obsolete because EPA has now
published national effluent guidelines-
and pretreatment standards for other--
industrial categories Regulations in Part
403 do not otherwise refer to Appendix
C,
Parts 405 To 460—Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standoxds.
1. FDF Variances. An industrial
discharger subject to effluent limitations
guidelines and standards promulgated
by EPA under the Clean Water Act may-
qualify for a “fundamentally different
factors” (“FOF”) variance that would
allow alternative limitations to those
imposed in the effluent guidelines.
Subpart 0 of 40 CFR Part 125 contains
the criteria and standards for FOF
variances, including the procedures for
applying to EPA for such variances.
However., the BPT (best practicable
technology) provisions of a large
number of effluent guidelines
themselves (contained in 40 R Parts
405 to 460) also discuss the availability
of FDF variances and the procedures for
applying for them (see, e.g.. the first
paragraph of section 405.12). I n these
particular effluent guidelines, this
lengthy discussion of FDF variances
generally is repeated in the BFI’
provision for each separate subcategory.
Thus, this virtually identical discussion
of FDF variances occurs several times -
within a particular effluent guideline in
many cases and a very large number of
times over the entire sot of effluent
guidelines. All of this. language in the
effluent guidelines is superfluous and
redundant with the criteria and
standards for FDF variances contained
in Part 125, Subpart D. Therefore, this
language is deleted today from each
place that it occurs in the effluent
guidelines. In its place in each affected
provision. EPA has added a cross
reference to Part 125, Subpart D.
2. Pretreatment Requirements. EPA is
similarly deleting today obsolete
language concerning pretreatment
requirements that currently exists in a
large number of individual effluent
guidelines provisions. In the l970 s,
when many of the earlier effluent
guidelines were promulgated. the
general pretreatment requirements for
clisehargers to publicly owned treatment
works (“P0TWs”) were contained I a 40.
GR Part 128. In 1978, EPA promulgated
a revised set of comprehensive
pretreatment regulations in 40 G’R Part
403. which superseded the Pail 128
regulations. Therefore, EPA deleted Past
128 from the Code of Federal
Regulations. See 42 Fed. Rag. 6478 (Fe6
2. 1977) and 43 Fed. Reg. 27736 (June
26. 1978). However, many of the.
pretreatment standards for existing
sources (“PSES”) and pretreatment
standards for new sourcee ( PSNS”) in .
the earlier effluent guidelines contain
cross-references to the Part 128 -
pretreatment regulations To date, thee.
aoss-reference have not been updated’
to reflect the replacement of P zt 123 by
Past 403. EPA Is accomplishing this.
update today.
Typically, the PSES provisions in
these effluent guidelines indicate first.
that the Part 128 pretreatment standards
apply, which would include the specific
pretreatment prohibitions in section
128.131 (prohibiting wastes that would
interfere with POTW performance by
causing fires. cori’osion. etc.). See. e.g..
40 CFR § 405.14. These specific
prohibitions are now contained in Part
403 (see section 403.5), so the reference
to section 128.131 is obsolete. Next,
these PSES provisions typically set out
a table of pretreatment standards that
apply to the particular
provide that those stand j , ’
place of the Part 228 prety
standards for “Incon
Accordingly. in thai
these effluent guidelii
retaining the table of
but is removing all reference”, (01
128 regulations as obsolete. ,
adding language that simply ,.
references the requirements of p, 11
The PSNS provisions in the ,
guidelines also reference the sp
prohibitions in sectIon 128.131 a
replace the Part 128 pretreatme -
standards for “incompatible” p
with specific standards. See, s.g .,
CFR §405.16. Generally. however t
replacement standards consist of
references to provisions that do ts,. ‘. -
contain any limitations for
“Incompatible” poUutants as defis— -
former Part 228. Therefore, to achj 5
parallel, updated language, the r ...,,
today to these PSNS standards siznp y
cross-reference the Part 403
requirements and contain no other -
limitations.
As with the other items in today’s
notice, these revisions simply conCe
obsolete or redundant language and
effect no substantive changes to the
variance provisions or the PSES and
PSNS provisions in Parts 405 through.
480.
B. Safe Drinking Water Act Rule,
Public Water Systems
Section 141.11—MCLs For Inorganls. ’
Contaminants. Pursuant to section 14
of the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA sets.
inaromum cont mlnRnt levels (“MCLI’
in section 141.11(b) of the regulations . -
foralist of eight inorganic
conthrnIn nts Subsec ently, in two
1991 rulg,mjikings (56 FR 3528. January 7
30, 1991 and 56 FR 30286. July 1. 19911 ’
EPA revised the MCLs for six of thee.
cenrkminAn (s-.,.cedm lum. Chromium. ‘f
mercury, nitrate, , Ian4um. and barium.
The 1901 rul .wi’nfrmn s placad the
revised MQ.s in e 1 ”n 141.62(b) and ‘
made themeffectlve 18 months after -
promulgation. The 1991 rule!nRkingl
also established these effective dates ini..-
the new regulations as the dates beyond
which the original MCLs in section .‘
141.11(b) farthesesixcontaminants -
would no longer be effective (January I.’
1993 for barium and July 30. 1992 for
the others). Because these dates have
passed. the MCLs for these si.x
contaminants in 141.11(b) are obsolete
and are deleted today. The language of
sections 14 1.11(a) and (b) is revised to
reflect these changes.
Section 141.11(c), which contains the
MCL for fluoride, is deleted today
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 125 1 Thursday, Lune 29. 1995 / Rules and Regulations
33929
e it is redundant with the MCI.
uonde that is now contained In
141.62(b). Section 141.11(d).
addresses an increased MCI. for
te that may be allowed at the
. 0 tion of the State, is unchanged by
i’s action and remains in effect.
,o. EPA revised its regulations for
june 7. 1991 (56 FR 26460) and
t rulempking established
1 ijber 7, 1992 as the date beyond
h the existing MCI for lead in
,n 141.11(b) would no longer be
uve. Because that date has passed.
ffL for lead in 141.11(b) is obsolete
1 sdeleted today.
a MCI. for arsenic in section
ti(b) is unaffected by today’s
naking and remains in fuji force
1fect.
ctiOflS 141.51(b), 141.62(b)(14),
.Z3(a)(4)(s)(TabJeL and
32(e)(56)—NiCkel Drinking Water
Jations. By today’s notice, EPA is
uig the public that the Agency has
ested and received a court order
wig and remanding the MCI. and
,G (maximum cont minnnt level
for ruckeL The remand has already
ieffect; today’s action simply
ves the nickel MCLG and MCI.
i the Code of Federal Regulations.
July 17, 1992, EPA promulgated
.Q.C of 0.1 rnglL for nickel under
Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”).
R317Th.TheMCLGisanon-
rceable health goal that is set at a
‘I at which “no known or anticipated
one effects on the health of persons
ir and which allows an adequate’
gin of safety” (SOWA section
2(b)(4)). In the same rule .nnlnng.
also promulgated a nationaL
nary drinking water regulation
PDWR”) for nickel, consisting of an
L of 0,1 mg/I.. associated monitoring..
lytical testing, and public notice
uueznents. and identification of best
ilable treatment technologies for
keL The MCI.. is an enforceable limit
c is set as close to the MCLG as Is
;ibla (SDWA section 1412(b)(4)).
a September. 1992. the Nickel -
e1opment Institute (a nickel trade
oaation) and other industry parties
11 a petition for review in the US.
urt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
ilienging the MUG and MCI. for
keL Nickel Development fnstitute et
EPA (No, 92—1407) and Specialty
el lnthistiy of the United States v.
wner(No. 92—1410). The petitioners
sod objections over EPA’s
thodology for determining the MCLG
nickeL Specifically, they raised
estions concerning the derivation of
a refat source contribution (“RSC”)
tor and the need for a 3.fold
i flaiflty factor that EPA applied due
to the lack of adequate data on the
effects of nickel ingestion on
reproductive systems. Because the MCI.
for nickel was based directly on the
MCLC, the petitioners also challenged
the nickel MCI.
EPA and the petitioners entered into
discussions in an attempt to settle this
litigation but could not agree on the
merits of the petitioners’ challenges.
Nevertheless, EPA has agreed that it did
not fully address in the public record
the petitioner’s comments on the
proposed methodology for deriving the
MCLG for nickeL Therefore, it is in the-
public interest to conduct further
rulemaking to obtain a full public airing
of those issues. Accordingly, EPA has
agreed to take a remand of the MCLG
and MCI. for nickel
The Agency notes that as of the 1992
rulemaking. projections from available
data estimated that only seven public
drinking water systems nationwide were
expected to have nickel levels exceeding
the MCI. of 0.1 mg/I.. Therefore, this
remand of the nickel MCL is not
expected to have a significant effect
nationwide on the levels of nickel in
public water systems.
Terms of the remand order.
Accordingly, on February 9. 1995, EPA
and the nickel industry petitioners filed
a Joint motion for a voluntary remand of
the nickel MCI. and MCLG. By orders of
February 23, 1995 and March 6, 1995.
the court granted this motion and.
vacated and remanded the following
regulations (and dismissed the lawsuit):’
1. The MCLC for nickel listed in 40
R 141.51(b);
2, The MCI. for nickel listed in 40
CFR 141.62(b)(14) and
141,23(a )(4)(i)(Table); and
3. 40 CFR 141.32(e)(56).
All other portions of 40 CFR 141.51(b)
and 141.23(a)(4)(i)(Table) are not
affected by the court’s order.
The MCLGa for contaminants other
than nickel listed in § 14L51(b) ramain .
of course, in full force and effect.
Similarly, as to the Table in
§ 141.23(a)(4H1), the court vacatedonly
the MCI. for nickel, leaving the
sampling methodologies and detection
limits for nickel (as well as the MU.s.
sampling methodologies and detection
limits for the other contlllnirlnnts) In full
force and effect, since they were not at
issue in the litigation. At EPA’s request.
the court also vacated the public notice
language in S 141.32(e)(56) for nickel
because it mentioned the nickel MCI.
and public notice language is not
necessary until the Agency reestablishes
an MCI. for nickel. No other aspects of
the national primary drinking water
regulations for nickel were vacated,
including monitoring requirements and
identification c f best available
technologies for nickeL EPA emphasizes
that monitoring and analytical testing
requirements for nickel remain in full
force and effect.
The nickel MCLG and MCI. should be
considered vacated and not in effect as
of February 23. 1995, the date of the
court’s original remand order. Today’s
actioa merely formally removes these
regulations from the Code of Federal
Regulations. Under the Administrative
Procedure Act. EPA finds that public
comment on today’s action is
unnecessary, since this remand has been
ordered by the court. See 5 U.S.C.
§ 553(b). Therefore, EPA is issuing
today’s action as a final rule rather than
as a proposed rule for comment.
Health Advisor, on Nickel. EPA does
not currently have a schedule for
reestablishing an MCLG and MCI. for
nickeL EPA has initiated an effort to
prioritize all its drinking water
regulatory development activities in
order to maximize risk reduction
potentiaL The priority of the nickel
reproposal is being considered as part of
that effort. To provide guidance for the
period prior to new regulations for
nickel, the Office of Water has recently
issued an updated Health Advisory for
nickeL A copy of the Health Advisory
can be obtained by contacting the Safe
Drinking Water Hotline, whose toll free
number is 1—800—426--4791. For further
information on Health Advisories,
contact Barbara Corcoran, Health
Advisory Project Manager at (202) 260—
1332.
One of the primary Issues raised by
the petitioners, as noted, concerned
EPA’s-derivation of the RSC factor used
in establishing the nickel MCLC. Since
the litigation was filed. EPA’s Office of
Water has formed a cross .Agency
workgroup to reexamine its RSC/human
exposure apportionment policy, as
noted at the front of the Health
Advisory. The charge of the workgroup
has since expanded to focus on the
development, of a consistent Agency-
wide approach Ice assessing total
human exposure to a Contaminant and.
where appropriate. allocating the
Reference Dose (RID) among the media
of I mr erm This workgroup has or will
be seeking input from EPA’s Science
Advisory Board. Science Policy Council
and Risk Assessment Forum. EPA
expects to publish proposed revisions to
this policy in the Federal Register for
public comment with the revision to the
human health methodology for
determining water quality criteria.
Subsequent to this remand, further
rulemaking on nickel will allow the’
Agency to encompass its ongoing efforts
on the RSC issues and will allow a full
-------
33930 Federal Register I Vol. 60. No: 125./ Thursday, June 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations - _____
public airing of this and all other issues
concerning the methodology for
deriving the MCLG for nickel. including.
any new information or analysis that
may e dst as to the carcinogenic
potential of Ingested nickel compounds.
In future rulemaking on nickel. EPA
will consider any new information that
has become available since EPA
established the MCLG and MCL for
nickel.
Section 141 .23(k)— .Technicai
Correction to Inorganic Chemical
Sampling and Analytical Requirements.
EPA isulso mAking one technical
correction of a typographical errol”
today. In section 141.23(k113)(ii). the
analytical acceptance limit for antimony
is listed as “6530 at 0.006 mgIP ’. This
was a typographical erroi’ —as indicated
in the Federal Register issuance of this
rule, the limt should have been listed
as “±31) at • 0.006 mg/I” (see 57 FR
31801. July 17. 1992). Today’s rule
mik this correction. Notice and
comment on this minor technical
correction axe unnecessary (see section
553(bl(3) of the Administrative
Procedure Act).
Section 141.34—Public Notice
Requirements for Lead. 40 CFR section
141.34 requIred public water systems to.
pro!ide, by June 19, 1988. a one4irn
notice to users that may be effected by
lead in drinking water. Since the
deadline for providing this notice
passed about seven yeass ago. and the
Agency subsequently promulgated
comprehensive lead public education.
provisions in its national primary
drinking water regulations for lead (see
40 CFR § 141.85). the Agency Is deleting-
section 141.34 as obsolete. -
Underground Injection ControF
Section 144.15—Assessment o Ckzse ’t
V wells. Section 144.15 required the-
Director to submit a report and-
recommendations to EPA regarding thi
inventory and a wQ meat of Class V
wells in the State within tiuea.years o1
the approval of the State UIC piogrnm -
The s essment of Class V wells has
now been completed. Accordingly, EPA
is removing sectIon 144.15.
Section 1 44.23(bff 2)—CJosure of Class
IV wells. Section 144.23(b)(2) required
the owner or operator of a Class I V well
to submit to the Regional Adminii txato,
for approval a plan for plugging or’
otherwise closing and abandoning the
well. These plans were required to be.
submitted within 60 days altar
promulgation of the UIC program in the
State. Because all State programs have
now been established (in most cases this
was accomplished by May or November
of 1985). section 144.23(bJ(2) is now
obsolete and is being removed.
Section 146.52—Class V Inventor,’
and Assessment. SectIon 146.52
required the Director to submit a report
to EPA regarding the inventory and
assessment of Class V wells Ii a State
within three years of the approval of the
State UIC program. The inventory and
assessment of Class V wells has been
completed. Accordingly. EPA is
removing section 146.52.
Section 148.1(cN4)—Scope and
Applicability. Section 148.1
(promulgated pursuant to authority
under section 3004 of the Resource-
Conservation and Recovery Act)
identifies hazardous wastes that sin
restricted from disposal in Class I
hazardous waste injection wells by the
land disposal restrictions of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (ESWA) and defines those
circumstances under which a waste,
otherwise prohibited from iniection.
may be injected. Section 148.1(c)(4)
provides that cont*niina.ted soil and
debris from CERCLA and RCRA cleanup
actions may continue to be injected
until November 8. 1988. EPA is
removing section 148.1(c)(4) because -
this date has passed and the rule is.
therefore, obsolete.
Ill. Good Cause Exemption from Noticea
and .C’ .”.”.u .t Rul. ,i . .kl ,ig Procedures..
The Administrative Procedure Act
generally requires agencies to provide
prior notice and opportunity for public.
comment before issuing a final rule. S
U.S.C § 553(b). Rules are exempt from
this requirement if the issuing agency
finds for good cause that notice andr - -
comment are unnecessary. 5 U.S.C..
§ 553(b)(3)(B).
EPA has determined that providing,
prior notice and opportunity for
comment on the deletion of these rules
from the CFR is unnecessary. For the
reasons discussed above, these rules are
obsolete or are redundant with other
statutory or regulatory requirements.. or
simply codify couzt.ordered remands..
Thus. withdrawing them from the G’R
has no legal impact and merely codifies -
their current legal status in the case of.
the obsolete and remanded rules. ( n .a.
small number of cases above, EPA baa- -
provided independent reasons for s.
good cause finding that notice and
comment are unnecessary.)
For the same reasons. EPA believes-
there is good cause for making the
removal of these rules from the CFR
immediately effective. See 5 U S.C.
§ 553(d).
IV. Analyses under E.O. 125
Unfunded Mandates Refozin ,
1905. the Regulab y Flexlhtli
the Paperwork Reduction A -
Because today’s action slniply ‘ .e4 .
withdraws rules from the
obsolete or that have already bees .
vacated by a court, or removes , ..
regulatory language that is du
with other statutory or regulatory
provisions, this action has no r8gula
impact and is not a “significant”
regulatory action within the meanj g of
E.O. 12866. It also does not impose ...
Federal mandate on State, local or tn j
governments or the private sector
the meaning of the Unfunded Msn j
Reform Act of 1995. For the same
reasons, pursuant to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. I certify that this action
would not have a significant economic
impact on a subst ti ,ul number of small
entities. Finally, deletion of these rulse
from the G’R does not affect
requirements under the Paperwork
Reduction Act -
List of Subjects
4OCFRPo .rt3 S
Grant programs—environmental
protection. Waste Treatment and
Disposal. Water Pollution ControL
40 CFfr Parts 127. 123 and 124
Administrative practice and
procedure, Water pollution controL
4OCFR Part 125
Water pollution control.
40 CFR Part 140
Sewage disposal. Vessels.
40 RPwt 142
Chemicals. Wales supply.
40 CFR Part 144 and 148
Hazardous wastes Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. Water
supply...
40tFRPort148
Hazardous wast...
40 RPart4O3” — -
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution controL
40C ’RPert405- -
Dairy products, Waste treatment and
disposal. Water pollution control.
4OCFRPart4O6 -
Grains. Waste treatment and disposal.
Water pollution control.
40 CFR Part 407
Fruits. Vegetables. Waste treatment
and disposal. Water pollution control.
-------
- jster I Vol. 60, No. 125 / Thursday. June 29,. 1995 I Rules and: Regulations 33931
g,treatmeflt and
1 QllUt 011 controL
• eatment and disposal,
. . ontzoL
u i
JSdUSt1Y . Waste treatment and
Watet pollution control.
pj t4i 2 -
‘ ves j ’ Waste treatment
Water pollution controL
6 jatozgent industry. Waste
&sposal, Water pollution
418’
Waste treatment and.
Water pollution control.
,434 -
, ls Waste treatment and
3,Watar pollution control.
Jurt42O
.iud &ass products. Waste
isad disposal. Water pollution
$Fvit4 2 Z
Waste treatmeut and
Watsr pollution controL -
II f 428.
aid robber products,. Tires.
maeanneot and disposal. Water
432
I aad meat products. Waste-
and disposal. Water pollutfoxa.
IO! t 435
g1fl.2 (Ania.4s4) -
3. Sections 12Z21(m )(3), (nr)(4) and
(n)(2) are removed and reserved.
•1fl.4& ( JsJ ) r -
4. In § 122.48(d). the words “(July 1,
1984)” are removed.
§123.62 (Amended)
5. Sections 122.62(a)(14) and
122.62(a)( 17) are removed and reserved.
§ 122.83 (Amended)
6. Section 122.63( 1) is removed and
reserved.
PART 123—STATE PROGRAM.
REQUIREMENTS
1. The authority citatIon for part 123
continues to read as follows:
Au*horftpr Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C 1251
et seq.
* 122.43 ( .t. .... .iMd )
2. Section 123.43(b).ls removed and.
re s erv
PART 124—PROCEDURES FOR
DECIS 1ONMAK ING
1. The authority citation for part 124
continues to read as follow,:
A-Ih . .ilt.ReamueaConservatlon and
R.w. Ad. 42 U.S.C 8901 ii seq.. Safe
Drtnkthg Water Act. 42 U.S.C 30 8 (f) at seq.
Clean Water Ad. 33 USC 1251.1 seq.;
CastrAte Ad. 42 U.&C 740te4 seq..
• 124.5&. (f au .dersd . .41J ...d1
2. SectIon 124.Sftiarernoved.and
PART 125—CRITERIA AND
STANDARDS FOR ThE NATIONAL
POLLUTANTDISCNARGE.
ELIMINATION SYSTEM
1. The authorit citatlon for Past 125
conttnuestn read as folIower ,
Auth.rItj Clan WatAd. as amended by
the Clean WiSer Act oft97? 3 U.S.C 1231 -
at .q . unwteenot,d
SiiI rtC to Pat 128 ( Rauh ,..d and
2. Subpart Ci . removed and reserved.
Subpart . 1 to Pert 125 ( Rauh..nd aid
_______ . : :. -. .
3. Subpiit J Isiemovedãnd reserved.
PART T40—MARINE SANITATION
DEVICE STANDARD -
1. The authority citation for part 140
continues to read as follows:
AuShorfty Sec. 312. as added Oct. 18.
1972. Pub. L. 92—500; sec. 2. 88 Stat. 871.
Interpret or apply sec. 312(bIfl), 33 U.S.C
1322(b)(1).
40 CFR Part 454
Chemicals, Waste treatment and
disposal. Water pollution control.
40 CFR Part 45$
Chemicals, Pesticides and pests,
Waste treatment and disposal, Water
pollution controL
40CFRPart4 7
Explosives. Waste treatment and
disposal. Water pollution controL
40 CPR Part 458
Carbon industry. Waste treatment and.
disposal. Water pollution control.
40 CFR Part 460
Hospitals. Waste treatment and
disposal, Water pollution controL
Dateth June 6. 1995.
Rebat Perdeaspe.
Asssstn_nt Admnustmtor for Water..
For the reasons set out in the
preamble. Chapter I of TItle 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is asn ieded
as follows:
PART 35-STATE AND LOCAL.
ASSiSTANCE
1. The authority citation for part 35.
continues to read as follows:
Authsrfty Seas. 105 and 301(8 1 of th.
Clean Air Ad. as amended. (42 U.S.C 740 5
and 7801(a)).Sec& 108. 205(g). 205()). 208.
319. 50 1(a). and 518 of the Clean Water Act.
as amended (33 U.S.C 1258. 128 5 ( a ). 1285(J ).
1288. 1361(a) and 1377): seas. 144 , 1450.
and 1451 of the Safe Drinkln Water Act (42.
U.S.C 3O0 ...2. 300)-9 and 300t-11 ): secs.
2002(a) and 3011 of the Solid Waste Disposal.
Act, as amended by the Resourca
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 .
U.S.C 8912(a). 6931.6947. and 8949); and
sacs. 4.23. and 25(a) of the Federal
Insecticide. Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.’
esi .wii.nded (7 U.S.C 136(b). 138(u) and.
138w(afl.
Suttp a rtDtoPe,135 (n .ovsdan
3. Subpart DIe removed and reserved
PART lfl —EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: ThE NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for Part 122
continues to read as follows:
Authantr The Clean Water Act. 33 U S C
1231 .1 seq.
§ 122.1 (Amended)
2. Section 122.1(g) is removed.
Ftfl438
lad gal exploration. Waste and
sad disposal. Water pollution—
— . . 2. Subpart C is removed and reserved.
b Waste treatment and disposal.
plt 1oj rcontruL . -
P f 443
sad roofing materials, Waste
‘tand disposal. Water pollution
448
indumy Waste (reatmen and
Water polIutjon control.
1 k m 4 47
It*istiy, Waste treatment and
Y’ pollution control.
-------
33932 Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 125 / Thursday. June 29. 19951 Rules and Regulation,
* 140.3 (Amended)
2. SectIon 140.3(h) Ii removed.
PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY
DRINKING WATER REGULATiONS..
I. The authority citation for part 141.
continues to read as follows:
Authority 42 U.S.C. 300f. 300g-1. 300g-2.
300g—3. 300g-4. 300g.-S. 300g-6. 300J-4. and
390’.9
2. In § 141.11. paragraphs (a) and (b)
are revised (the table in paragraph
(b) is removed) to iead as follows, and
paragraph (c) is removed and reserved:
§ 141.11 Mmdmum con nlnent levels for
Inorganic chemicals.
(a) The ma,dmum contaminant Level
for arsenic applies only to community
water systems. Compliance witi! the
MCL for arsenic is calculated pursuant
to § 141.23.
(b) The maximum contaminant level
for arsenic is 0.05 milligrams per liter.
(c) (Reserved)
• a a a a
§ 141.23 (Amended)
3. En § 141 23(a)(4)(i). the entry for
nickel in the Table is amended by
removing and reserving the Listed. “MCI
(mg/i)” for nickel; all other parts of the
entry for nickel in the Tabl. remain
unchanged.
4. In § 14 1.23(k)(3)(li). the Atxeptancn
Limit for Antimony in the Table is
revised to read as follows: “±30 at: -
0.006 mg/I”. - -
§141.32 (Amended) -
5. Section. 141.32(e)(56) Is removaó -.:
and reserved. -
§ 141.34 (Amendedi
6. Section 141.34 is removed and.
reserved. -
§ 144.51 (Amended)
7. In § 141.51(b) the line in the Tibl&..
listing the contaminani. ”Nickal” and.
the MCLG for nickel Is removed.
§ 141.62 [ Ams. ,dad
8. In § 141.62(b). entry (14) in tbr
Table is removed and reserved.
PART 144—UNDERGROUND
INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM.:
1. The authority citation for part 144
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Safe Drinking Water Act. 42
U S.C 3001 Ct seq: Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act. 42 U S.C. 6901 at seq
§ 144.15 lRemov.d and reserved)
2. Section 144.15 is removed and
reserved.
§144.23 (Amsndedi
3. Section. i44.23(b)(2) is removed and
reserved.
PART 146—UNDERGROUND-
INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM:
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 146
continues to read as followa:
Authonty Safe Drinking Water Act. 42
U.S.C 300f at seq.; Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act. 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.
§14W-
(Removed)
2. SectIon 148.52 is removed.
PART 148—HAZARDOUS WASTE
INJECTION RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 148
continues to read as follows:. -
Authorfty Sea. 3004. Resource
Conservation end Recovery Act. 42 U.S.C.
6901 at seq.
§143.1 (Removed)
2. Section 148.1(c)(4) is removed.
PART 403—GENERAL .
PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS FON
EXISTiNG AND NEW SOURCES OP.
POLLUTION—
1. The authority crtatfon for part 402 -
continues-to read as follows: . . -
Authonty Sec. 54(cX2 ofthsCIean WRtar
Act of 1977. (Pub: 1. 95—217) semiona
204(b)(1)(CJ. 208(bfl2J(C)(Iil). 3o1(b)(1 )(A)(1I).
301(b)(2)(A)(Ii). 301 (b) 12)(C) . 301(h)(5L . -
301(iJ(2). 304(e). 304(g). 307. 303. 309. ‘ -
402(b). 405 and 501(a) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (Pub. ti 92—500) as -
- . amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 and
- - - the Water Quality Ac! of 1987 (Pub.L IOG.r
— 4). .
§403.1’ (Amended)’ 1-.
2. Section 403.1 (c) is removed.Y ‘.
§403.5 (Amend.dI.. - .... . -
3. SectIon 403.5(11 Is removed
4. Section 403.8(c) is revised end the
• . text of paragraph (d) is removed and
reserved to read.ai follower- .:
§403.3__Pretrealinent Progrmn . -
, Requlisma ..1s. Osv.Iopm.nI —
mpIas.ntalleiiby POT. ...
(c) Incorporation of appmved_r :
programs in permits. A POTW map .
develop an appropriate POTW
pretleatment program any time before’
the time limit set forth in paragraph lb)-
of this section. If the POTW is located
in a State which has an approved State
permit program under section 402 of the
Act and an approved State pretreatment
program in accordance with § 403.10. or
if the POTW is located in a
doe. not have an approved pe
program under sectIon 402 of
the POT’V’s NPDES
reissuedorniod tytheN )
Stale or EPA. respectively, EQ.
incorporate the approved Pr
C - - - - Ic0n C
the? ationo
F forth.
ol .. —
F”
the procedures in §403.11_.
deemed a minor Permit mod
subject to the procedures in
122.63.
(d) incorporation of corn p1 ja
§403.3 (Amended)
4(a). The last sentence of
§ 403.8(fl(IXV1MA) is removed. —
5. Section 403.10 is amended b 1 r.- !
removing and reserving Pp
and Id) and revising paragraph (c)
read as follows: _____
§403.10 Oevelopmentandsubmli ,
NPOES SteEl pretreatment progne ,-
• a a a a
(b) (Reserved).
(C) FoJiwe to request appmvaL
Failure of an NPDES State with .
program approved under sectIon 4
the Act price to December 27, 1973 ,
seek approval of a State Preueatn
Program and failure of anapprove’
State to ailminicter its State
Pretreatment Program in accost
with the requirements of this secife
constitute, grounds for withdr.wl
NPDES program approval under r
402(c)(3) of the Act.
(d)LReserved l
a a a
§403.12 (Amunded) -
6. The second sentence after ti
heading of § 403.12(b) intxn.l. 4a1
isrmoo _ - .
7. Section 403.13 isa - - -
revising paragraph (g)(2) tans:.
follows:.
§403.13 - V cesfrem - - t j- - 6.
p,.g na .,r i r for fun
dUfemnlfai iurs . -
• a a a a
(gJ Application deadhnm ‘:.:
(1)
(2) In order to be considered, $1
for, a variance must be subnuttedi
later than 180 days after the data t-
which a categorical retreaUflø
Standard is published in the FId
Register.
La) ‘ a a
• a • a •
Lncorporat
• a a a a
-------
Federal Register I VoI; 60. No.. 125 / Thursday, June 29; 1995 1 Rules and Regulations
33933
a ( Removed and rsasived)-
B Is removed and
c ( Ranw ..d and ve4 )
ndix C is removed and
4 Q -4AMENDE0J
. ,t 405:
authority citation for part 405
• “nnuesto read as follows:
Secs. 301. 304 (b) and (c). 306
• j ) and 307(c) of the Federal Watac
I Control Act, as amended (the Act):
1251. 1311. 1314(b) and (c), 1318
and 1317(c): 88 Stat. 616. et seq..
• . .soo 91 Stat. 1567. Pub. 1., 95—217.
• 5eCtiOfl 405.12 is amended by
the Introductory text to read as,
Effluent limitations guidelines
pndng the degre. of eWuent
gtt IflSble by the application of
•bsel practicable control technology -
— _elL &
pt as provided in §4125.30
125.32. any existing point
subject to this subpart shall
ethe following effluent
iidøn 5 representing the degree of
t reduction attninnhlo by the.......
______of the best practicable
raJ technology currently available
) F, - • a
i SectIon 405.14 is amended by
,elagthetext above the table (thm .i
,praa*in unchanged) to road as
(l4 P,,UeaUn..t s idds for —
—
My existing source subject to this,
çst that Introduces process. - -
uwater pollutants into a publicly
aud treatment works must comply
4O (7R part 403. In addition. thd,
tngpretreatment standard
Wiee the quandryor quality or
idsnts or pollutant properties “ “
olledby this section whichinay b
rg.d to a publicly owned -
eaUw Orksbyapo Intsouree C.
ilirt to the provisions of this eubpart
405.18 Is revised to read. a
4 PTI i U , 1 i stendu s for flSes (
source subject to this.
that introduces process
pollutants into a publicly
8atment works must comply
part 403.
‘ flU 405.22 is amended by
tbe Introductory text to read as’
• 405.32 Effluent limitations guideline.
ro$hssitting flea d.gr..of effluent’
reduction attaki ls by the apØlcatie.
the best practicable control technology ’
currundy available.
Exceptas provided in §5125,3 1
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
a . a .
6. Section 405.24 isarnended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 406.24 Pvsus ouijit stondas n for’
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this’
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutant.s into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. in addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality Oi j
pollutants or pollutant properties.
controlled by this section.which may be
discharged to a publicly owned..
treatment works by a poin aonrce.
subject to the provisions of thlssubpar&,
• S. •‘ • ‘ -
7. Section 405.26 Is revised to read as’ -
follows:
§406.20 Pretrs..L......( 5t d. ior w -i
sources. . .
Any new source subject to thla,, .,,,,,
subpart that introduces pro e sr;. -
wastowater pollurantsinto,a publicl
owned treatment works must cornp1y. j
with 40 CFRpart4Oai. L - r -
8. Section 405.32 is amended’b a , -.
revising the introductory text trrzead eat
follower , ‘ •rL’
-; ‘3
§406.32 Effluent limitations guldelhijear..’..
rep tlng the degree of effTusnf’t
reduction attalnabto by the ppplicaUonoI ’
the beet prac5cabie trui toUeao ’ -‘
siaui6y aedi s. - . . -
Except as provided in §4 125.3O :
through 125.32. any wasting point
source subject to this subpart shalt .
achiev, the following afflujesit, ,- rt . i
llnutattons representing ede eseI, j’
effluent reduction attainable by the .
application of the best practicable.
control technology currently ava ilable.,. .
(8FF):.
a a a a a
9. SectIon 405.34 is amended br
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows: -
440&34 Prelrsaln&.t standards fer
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastow ater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned.
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• a a a a
10. SectIon 405.36 is revised to read
as follows:
§40630 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 R part 403.
11. Section 405.42 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
440642. Effluent flmftations guidelines
. prsaesfllng the degree of effluent
reduction a’ ” e by the application of
the bust pr tcabl . control technology
clirrusifly i ab e.
Except as provided in §4125.30
thzeugfr -125 3z. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the beet practicable
control technology currently available
(BFTh . . - -
• a . a a
12. SectIon 405.44 is amended by
revising the text above.the table (the
table tem unsinarhauiged) to read as
follower
§406+4 Pts$ L—.t sbu for
AoyaexiItlngsourcesubject to this
subpart that Introduces’ process
wastewaterpollurnnte Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 R part 403. In addition, the
following yautactnnent standard
establfshes’ the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled.bythissectfon which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart
13. Section-405.46- is revised to read
asfollowac
-------
33934 Federal Register I Vol. 60, No 125 / Thursday, June 29, 1995 / Rules and
4406.46 Prsua.Imiuil . tsn ds far new
ueress -
Any new sou subject to thir
subpart that Introduce. process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 R part 403.
14. SectIon 405.52 is amended by
revising the uitroductory text to read as
follows:
4 406. Emuent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
curru, tiy s ollabl
Except as provided In §4125.30
through. 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shail
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree oL.
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practlcable
control technology currently available -
(BP ’fl;
• • a a •
is. Section 405.54 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the.
table remains inwhiing.d) t
follows:
4406.64 Pr.b. n t . &a. . us tee
existing eswces. - - - — -
Any eidsting source subject to thie” ‘
subpart that introduces pi &
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly
owned. treatmmn? worke muss r mp1yL
with 40 0R part 403. In addltlon the-.
following pretreatment standard- .- -
establishes the quantity. or quality oL,..
pollutants or pollutant propertiw.
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned.
t]eatmsnt works by a point smnce ’ -
subiect to the prov saons of this subperv
16. Section 403.56 lizevtae toread.
as follows: . - - .
.L.
___________ -- -.
Any new source subject to thl , -
subpart that Introduces
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned tzeatmmrt works. muss. comply.
wrth4 OCFRpan4 OS
17. Section 405.6215 a dedhpcr.
revising the introductory tai to reed as ’
followar . . - .,‘-.
4406.82 EMuentUmI euse -’ t.._. .,
,. .ting the dsqrs. ol effluent
reduction attaInable by the ap i ’ -”on of’
the beat pracVc 4. control technology
cunemtiy avxitabls
Except as provided in §5125.30-
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction att insihle by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available’
(BPT)
• a • a a — -
18. Section 405.84 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table rem int unchanged) to read as
follows:
4406.64 Pretreaensnt stundds for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity-or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned..
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
19. Section 405.66 Is revised to read-
as follows:
4406.66 Prstrs.fma..I etenddsfor nsw
sources. -
Any new source subject to thiw
subpart that introduces
wastewatar pollutants into a publicly.-
owned treatment works must comply’-
with4OCFRpart4 O3. - -
20. Section 405.72 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
discharged to a publicly 0
treatment works by 5pol •j
subject tothepmv1sto t --
a a a • •
- a..,...
22. Section 40576 Is
as follower -
4406.76 .PrstraL .II,.,ts,,d -
Any new source sub jest t
subpart that introduces prni
wastewater pollutants into
owned treatment works in
with4OCFRpart4O& - ‘
23. Section 405.82 isa
revising the introductory Ii ...
follows:
4406.82 Effluent Ilmitetiane mdi i’
iep...a.nthrg the degree of sMt
rsductiess attainabl, by ths
thi beat ablsCcntroi a.,
cunsntiy
Except as provided In 54 i -
through 125.32. any eidsttngpti
source subject to this subpart sit
_______________ achieve the following efflureit -
limitations representing the ds:A v
effluent reduction attainabj .
____ application of the best prectin
control technology currently,
- -
• :. • •
24. Sectien 405.84 i sa
revising the text above the thb
_____
4406.72 - ..... - - - - ..
, .,......JJng d’.s d.v’ Of stibiuni -. 4406.34 PiatjuUn .t as:..J..j
reduction attainable by the appI ation of exI ig eeuss -
the best practicable conool tsctrnologr .. -
curferidy _ , _ p _ hi . -. .. Any existing source subj
Except as provided in §9’12330.r -. subpart that introduses praew.
through 125.32. any existintpo4nt ’ - ‘ wastewetar pollutants Into opal
source subject to this subpart thai?’ - ‘
achieve the following effluentii’ - WI
limitations representing the degresed’-r.. - follo’ ___
effluent reduction attain ..hle by the”
application of the best practlcable’ • ,.,
(BPfl: ogy currmiilyavailab diachargait toe publi ly aw l
a • a a •,. —I tieaau .atfwork..byaIo1niI
21. Section 405.74 1 5 nitha j - - acb)Sst to the piovisi
revising the text above the table (thee., “ . .
table min. ‘ nged ) to read as’.- - - - as.. Section 405.881. mu
fOlloWs. - c1 as. ll_otews .- .
4406.74 PreUuaUna..t sisadunlu fop
— scu, - .u-. - .
Any existing source subject to tble’- -
subpart that introduces process- -
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR pail 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of -
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
1 . . .
.Iaadi
it ‘ tim _
4406JP P 1 _ i4
r - -s — ’ ‘ -
Any new source subject tt -
subpart that Introduces prom
- wastewator pollutants stes 11 id
owned treatment works mes.
with 40 G’R part 403. 3
26. Section 405.9215
revising the uitzoductoll ç 9 ___
follower
-------
:: FeIj j Reglstei / VoL 60, Na. 12 / Thux3day. June 29. 1996 ./ Ruies and Regulations
— Ikeltadans grildeilnes
‘ i,isd1• d S Of effluent
g nable by fits pIIcaflon oI
control technology
provided in §S 125.30
• 125.32. any existing point
ubieCt to this subpart shall
the following effluent
1 ,g,piesenting the degree of
iduCtiO11 attainable by the
of the best practicable
tec1ui0l° Y currently available
a,, •• •
405.94 5 amended by
text above the table (the
jns unchanged) to read es
atmu1t $hnIdardefOr
5 ,dadng SOurce subject to this
thef oduces process
&ar pollutants into a publicly
t ms:aworks.must comply
cER part 403. In addition, the:
j g pretreatment standard
j as the quantity or quality of
sf 50? pollutant properties-
,lsdby this section which may be
tea publicly owaed
uiiivalk&byaPo1flt5oU1 . .
tto the provisions-of thtesubparV
a •— • .
Sofien 405.90 Is revised toread:
j az.ut £tr’-’ f fl
• :-- I —
yasw source subject to thia
giheintroducee pce •-
r 11 ’ inwrapublicly-..r.
dbi.flnest works must comply: ‘r
G l Rpait403t . _
3nt1or405.102 is ameudedby ’.
±a introductory text to read am
• lMjint ia 0. grda . :
I gthsdegrs.of effluent-
by the appflcatlon ol
WQTtdedIn Sl25.30 :—
* 125.32. any existing point-
this subpart shalL v
‘t )Ilowing eff1uenbr , .- . •. q
rUpiesenting the degree of
lalouattainablebyth. ‘.
efth abest practicable
Oogy currently available
a -
4O5 104 Is amended by
*abovs the table (th.
.Unchanged) ta read as
405.10$ Preusatntsnt $hnIda’de foe
.xleflng eeure
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 R part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source.
:thi to the provisions of this subpait
33935
§406.110 Frulrutazint ahniddu foe new
Any new source subject tmthla.
subpart that introduces process
wasteweter pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR.palt 403..
35. Section 405.122 Is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
§ 406125 EfflUent limitations guidelines
iuIl .uaS. ,dflg the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by fits application at
ths best psu 1ts le canbel technology
vail a bls
Except as provided in §S125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart sheik -
achieve the following effluent
limitations represeniingthsdegree of
effluent reduction attnin . ,ihle by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT): - -
a a a e ’ ••
36. Section 405.124 is amended by
revising the teat above the table (the
table remains imI h nged1 to read as
foUows: . . -
§406.124 PrstieaIm.nt standards foe
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that Introduces p . .e
wastewatar pollutants muss puhli4y
own.d.treef’nsnt workamust comply
with, 40 ( ‘R part 403 : In addition, the
following pnutri lmmat stsndg d
establlah”, th quantlty or quality of
poilutaniaor poUutant properties
controlled by this sectioixwhich may be
dlechar ed to-a publicly owned
uvailable’. treatment worksby a point souroe
sub ject to the provisions of this subpart
37:- Sectlon.405J26 is revised, to read
aafollgwea . -.
§406.120 Prius..wi...,t
31. Section 405.100 Is revised to read
as follows::
§406.106 Prul,s.im&.t stand s far nsss
eoures .
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply. -
wit lr4 o CFR part 403.
32 Section 405.112 is amended by
revising the Introductory text to read a&
follower
§406.112 . Effluent limitations guldsllnss , -
rs ssunting th. dsgrs . of effluent
ruducns .tednabls by the application ott•
the control technology- -
0 .Ubt
Except aa.previded in §S 125.30’--
through 423.32. any existing point , -
sou subject to this subpart shall ‘:-
achieve the following affluent -.
llmitaticoa-iepresenting the degree oi -
effluent reduction attainable by the-
application of the best practicabla
controi technolo g)c currently -.
(BPTJ . ,
a
revising thatext abo (e the table (the
table r’r ’ns unchanged ) to read as.
§.4 PPube.Uui..I . tand..de fer ‘-
._c .F. - £ p.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wutswutãpollutants into a publicly-
owned trs.tment works must compIyi ’
with40 part 403. In addition. th
following pretreatment standard
estehifahisa the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart
a a a . a
34 SectIon 405.116 is revised to read
- asfollowerl.
,‘aa W.UM -.
tha t oduce.p ..-
- Westewater pollutAnt. Late apublicly -
owned treatment, works must comply
PART 40S- AMEIDEOJ -
jnPaft406e v- ....-’ s - ’ -
1. The authority cita1ioi for put 406.
coa’f” s to rea4 as fdliowm . -
Autheoltp Ssce 301. 304(h)exrd(ck 30e•
(b) and (C). 3 07 ( c) of the F ’ed.r.l Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended; 33 U.S.C
1251. 131 1- 4314(b) and(ch 1316(b) and (ci.
1317(c); aeSiat. 810el seq.. Pub. L 92-600:
91 Stat. 1567; Pith. L 95—217 ,.
2. Sectiun.40S. 12.isainended by
removing paragraph I .). redesignating
-------
Federal Re ister / Vol. 60, No. 125 I Thursday, June 29, 1995 / Rules and F
paragraph (b) as new paragraph (a).
redesignating paragraph (c) as new
paragraph (b), and revising the text
above the table (the table remains
unchanged) in the newly redesignated
paragraph (a). The text in the newly
redesignated paragraph (b) is amended
by removing the words “paragraph (b)”
and inserting in their place the words
“paragraph (a)”. The revised text reads
as fotlows:
§ 406.12 Effluent limitations guideline.
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by th. application of
the beet practicable control technology
currently aval
(a) Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. and subject to the
provisions in paragraph (b) of this
section. any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT)i’
• • a a a
3. Section 406.14 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
• 406.14 Piu saUnaoI abeidaide foe
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publidy owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• a a • a
4. Section 406.16 is amended by
revising the introductory text (the table
and paragraph (a) are unchanged) to
read as follows:
9406.1. Preealm..1 sls.,Jilo foe new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly’
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
provisions set forth in paragraph (a) of
this section apply. as well as the
following pretreatment standard which
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to publicly owned treatment
works by a new source subject to the
provisions of this subpart.
0 0 0 S 0
5. Section 406.22 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table r TnaiiIs unchanged) to read as
follows:
§40t Effluent limitations guideline.
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beet practicable con Vol technology
currently evalUates.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
I S S * S
6. Section 406.24 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§406.24 Preveatmard stenda,ds for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treamiet works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the-
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• U U U S
7. Section 406.20 Is revised to read as
follows:
9406.26 Prstrauuaant standards fee ness
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
8. S4ctlon 406.32 Is revised to read as
follows:
§406.32 Effluent Ilmitaflone guideline.
rs ..eenting tb• degree of effluent.
reduction attainable by ths applisatlon ot
the best practicable con Vol msiogy
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT): There shall be no discharge of
process waste water pOlltits
navigab waters.
9. Section 406.34 is am
mvisingthetexta ..
table unchang .jj Ii
follows: -
§406.34 Prs*
existing sources.
Any existing source su
subpart that introduces -
wastewater pollutants into
owned treatment works mi ,
with 40 CFR part 403. -
following pretreatment stan
establishes the quantity or
poilutakrts or pollutant propn
controlled by this section
discharged to a publicly ow
treatment works by a poi .,
subject to the provisions of tbj, 1
• S S U •
10. Section 406.36 is
as follows:
Prabeabnontsfenti
Any new source sub ject to ihj 5
subpart that introduces prnc . , . . . . ;
wastewater pollutants into a pul -
owned treatment works raun
with 40 CFR part 403.
11. Section 406.42 is amen
revising the text above the
table remains unchanged) ii
follows:
§406.42 Effluent limitation,
representing the dag of elf
reduction attainable by thee -
the beat practicable control I
currently w ab’. .
Except as provided in --
through 125.32. any existhil
source subject to this subpart si
achieve the following effluent
e uent reduction attaitable by
application of the best practi mhhii
control technology currently are
(BFfl:
12. Section 400.44 is ameuded
revising the text above the iabis(
table remains unchanged) to ruedi
follows:
§406.44 Prstrsatmsit id dist
existing sources.
Any existing source subject tO
subpart that introduces proceat
wastewater pollutants into a pub
owned treatment works must 5
with 40 CFR part 403. In additini
following pretreat.rneiit r ”-’ 4
establishes the quant Ity 0-
poliutants or pollutant proped
controlled by this section whit
discharged to a publicly
a a S S *
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 125 / Thursday. June 29, 1995 I Rules and Regulations
33937
workS by a point source
the provisions of this subpart.
a •
tp
r tjon 406.46 is revised to read
• jU0W
pre4joefffleflt stUfldalds for new
y new source subject to this
that introduces process
, tewacer pollutants into a publicly
treatment works must comply
41 cFR part 403.
ctlon 408.52 is revised to read
Effluert limitations guidelines
the degree of effluent
attainable by the application of
cable con Vol toClinology
pt as provided in § 125.30
125.32, any existing point
u ject to this subpart shall
the folio wing effluent
ojjons representng the degree of
isn1 reduction attainable by the
a of the best practicable
echnology currently available
There shall be no discharge of
waste water pollutants La-
ip ewater
Section 406.54 is amended by -
the text above the table (the
j .nains nnrhAngecl) to read as
mia ..i st.n d . for
Asy existing source subject to this
çsit that introduces process
water pollutants into a publicly
d iteawient works muat comply ’
ds 40 (7R part 403. In addition, the
kwtsg pxetzeatrnent standard
“ the quantity or quality of
or pollutant properties
lIa4 by this section which may be
à ig.d to a publicly owned
I two,ks by a point source
I to the provisions of this subpart..
I , • a a a.
1S 51 5 1 0 5 48
6.56 Is revised to read
AI!ne outtesub •ectt this
that in1raduce process
Pollutants into a publicly
works must comply
0CPR part 403.
st:tii* 406.82 is amended by
tb te f above the table (the
Unchanged) to read as
40t82 Effluent limitations guideline.
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicabi. con Vol technology
aurentiy Wiabl
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
lunitations representing the degree of
affluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• a a a a
18. Section 406.64 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§401.64 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing souzce sub pact to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
wIth 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point sow
subject to the provisions of this subpart
19. Section 406.66 is revised to read
as follows:
§401.86 Pratrsabu&.I eteedeede far new
eeurce
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
20. Section 406.72 Is revised to read
as follows:
§406.72 Effluent Im Itations guidelinee
representing the degro. of effluent
reduction attainable by th app&allnn air
Si. beet precticabi. cenbof luchnoleg ?
CarT enSy available
Except a a provided in § 125.3a
through 125.32. any wasting point
source sublect to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent-
limitations representing the degree of
affluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT): There shall be no discharge of
process waste water pollutants to
navigable waters.
21. Section 406.76 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
• 406.76 Pretreatment standards for new
soureee
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewator pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
wIth 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties.
controlled by this section. which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
22. Section 406.82 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 401.82 Effluent limitations guidelines
repreeentlng the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable con Vol technology
currentiy avaiLable.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(W I ’): There shall be no discharge of
process waste water pollutants to
navigable waters.
23. Section 406.86 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table r fn in . unchanged) to read as
follows:
§405.86. Pi UIu 1 uat sueidanls for new
ecurce& -
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 R part 403. Ia addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties.
controlled by this section, which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by w new point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
24. Section 406.92 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table ren xin. iinrhanged ) to read as
follows:
§406.92 Effluent Umitatiene guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best precilcabI. confrol technology
currenSy available.
Except as provided in §5 125 30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
-------
33938 Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 125 I Thursday, June 29. 1995 / Rules and Regulations
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• S S S S
25. SectIon 406.96 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 406.96 Pretreatment standards lot new
sources
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties 1
controlled by this section. which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
26. Section 406.102 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains iin ’h .ngec1) to read as
follows:
§400.102 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currentiy avaIlable.
Except as provided in §S 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• S S S S
27. Section 406.106 is amended by
revising the text above the table (thern
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 406.100 Pvetraatinent standd for new.
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastawater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties.
controlled by this section. which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
PART 407.—{AMENDEDI
In Part 407
1. The authority citation for part 407
continues to read as follows:
Authortty Seca. 301. 304 (b )and (ci. 306
(b) and (C). 307(c) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended 33 U.S.C.
1251. 1311. 1314 (bland (ci. 1310(b) and (c).
1317(c); 88 Stat. 816 at seq.. Pub. L. 92—500
91 Stat. 1567. Pub. L. 95—217.
2. SectIon 407.12 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§407.12 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicabl. control technology
currendy available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• S S • • S
3. Section 407.14 is amended by -.
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§401.14 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 G’R part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment st ntIard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties -
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly ’ wned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the previsions of this subpart.
4. Section 407.16 is revised to read as
follows:
§401.16 PreU.tnb.t standards for nsw .
Any new source subject to this.-
subpart that introduces proces&
wastawater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
5. Section 407.22 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§401.22 Effluent lImitations guIdelIne.
representing the degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
curiendy available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point -
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the d
effluent reduction attainable
application of the best practicabt
control technology currently avaij
Ffl:
6. Section 407.24 is amended —
revising the text above the table
table remains unchanged) to rr--
follows:
§ 407.24 Pretreatment etarldar
existing sources.
Any existing source s’ - -
subpart that introduces proct
wastewater pollutants into a pubft
owned treatment works must Cofli
with 40 CFR part 403. In add1tio
following pretreatment st... -
establishes the quantity or qu
pollutants or pollutant r-
controlled by - in which
discharged to a publicly owned -
treatment works by a point sou, . -
subject to the provisions of this
7. Section 407.26 is revised to
follows:
§ 407.20 Pretreatment standartis fara
sotueea. -‘ c - ‘ -
Any new source subject to u
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publi
owned treatment workb must —
with 40 R part 403.
8. Section 407.32 is amended
revising the text above the table (t
table remains nnri .srnged) to read a
follows: -
§407,32. Effluent limitations
representing the degree o
reduction attainable by the a
the best practicable control t
cunentiy avaIlable.
Except as provided in §
through 125.32. any existing pointe
source subject to this subpart shaiW
achieve the following effluent
limitations representingthedm
effluent reduction attainable by ti
application of the best pra 44 1
control technology currently evaII
(BPT):
• - • a S S
9. Section 407.34 is ameni
revising the text above the table I
table remains unchanged) to r,ad
follows:
§407.34 Prelreaun. ...t r— —
existing sources.
Any existing source subject totb
subpart that introduces prOcarel 4
wastewater pollutants into a ptiL
owned treatment works must oiwj
with 40 CFR part 403. insddid
following pretreatment standait 1 ’
establishes the quantity or qu
iulduiE
-------
lutsD t5 or pollutant propertles
o led by this section whIch may be
sged to a publicly owned
works by a point source
to the provisions of this subpart.
o. Sectl°fl 407.36 is revised to read
3 IloWS.
736 pietieatiulent standards for new
iy Oew source subject to this
,att that introduces process
, 8 water pollutants into a publicly
d treatment works must comply
CFR part 403.
. Section 407.42 is amended by
sing the text above the table (the
remains unchanged) to read as
7.42 Effluent limitations guideline.
anlin9 the degree of effluent
on attainable by the appileatfoftot
bOSt precticeble coiihnl technology-
idy avatiabl&
xcept as provided in § 125.30
)ugh 125.32. any eidsting point
rce subject to this subpart shall
ieve the following effluent
itaflonS representing the degree of
jent reduction attainable by the
licatlon of the best practicable
trol technology currently available
fl:
. . . .
2. Section 407.44 is amended by
ising the text above the table (the
le unchanged) to read as
lowe:
17.44 Prstrs.Imwit .tandds for
ithig source..
ny existing source sub act to thin
pazl that introduces process
stewater pollutants into a publicly
ned treatment works must comply
:h 40 R part 403. In addition, the
lowing pretreatment standard
ablishee the quantity or quality of-
Ilutants or pollutant properties
atiolled by this section whIch may be
charged to a publicly owned
atment works by a point source
ojectto the provisions of this subpart.
13. Section 407.46 is revised to read.
followar
OTAI Prelie..tment standards for nsw-
ult”.
Any new source subject to this
bpart that introduces process
utewater pollutants into a publicly
treatment works must comply
Iii 40 CFR part 403.
14 Section 407 52 amended by
Vising the text above the table (the
bie remains unchanged) to read as
1 lQwu:
§ 407.52 Effluent Ilmitallens guideline.
representing ths degles of effluent
reduction attatitatils by the application of
the bent practicable cenPel technology
cu,Ten t iyavoli a bls.
Except as provided in §S 125.30
through 125.32. any e:dstlng point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BF I1:
• • a a a
15. Section 407.54 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§407.54 Pretreatment standards for
exi sling source..
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 GR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
:ithi to the provisions of this subpart..
16. Section 407.56 is revised to read.
asfollowe:
§407.56 Pvutra.Wis..i stand.ds far new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
17. Section 407.62 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
followe:
§ 401.52 Effluent limitations guidelines
.. ,. ,nling the d. pa of effluent
reductien attainable by the application ot
It. best practicable control technology
cwTenliy enednd
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any wasting point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitnnia representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
S S a a
18. Section 407.64 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
33939
§ 407.64 Pietreaunset standards for
existing sources.
Any eidstlng source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 QR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by any existing point
source subject to the provisions of this
subpart.
19. Section 407.66 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains imrhsinged) to read as
follows:
§ 407.65 Prstreatmimt standards for new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• a a a •
20. Section 407.72 is amended by
revising the Introductory text to read as
followe:
§407.72 Effluent Ilmitaliens guideline.
repre..tiUng It. deerus of effluent
reduction atednabis by the application of
th best pracik Is control technology
— aed
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the beet p act1cable
control technology currently available
(BFTh
r
• a a a- a
2t Section 407.74 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remana unchanged) to read as
followe:
§407.74 Pretreatment standards tea
existing onuces.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a pub lidy
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 125 / Thursday. June 29, 1995 I Rules and Regulations
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 125 / Thursday. June 29,. 1995 / Rules and Rer’
S
S S
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
table remaina unchanged) to reed as
follow,:
4. SectIon 406.1615
followsa
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by any eidsting point
source subject to the provisions of this
subpart.
• • • • ,
22. Section 407.76 is amended’by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 407.76 Petreatinent standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• a a
23. Section 407.82 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read
follows:
§ 407.88 P a wfl 5tafldlids for 11 1W.
-
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment stanrlard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant propemes
•controiled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
a
PART 408—CAMENDEDI
In Part 408:
1. The authority citation for part 408
continues to read as follows:
Authoi-rtyi Seci. 301. 304 (b) and (c). 306
and (C), 307(c), of the Federal water
Pollution Control Act, as an.uded as u.s c
1251, 1311, 1314 (b) and (c i. 1316(b) and (ci,
1317(c): 86 Stat. 816 at seq.. Pub. L. 9250O
91 Stat. 1567. Pub. L 95—217.
2. Section 408.12 is amended by
§406.16 strs.ljns
SOWCS
Any tiaw source “ tect to i
5 Part that introduce. proc
wutewatar pollutants into a
OWned treatnient works m
with 40 CFR part 403.
5. Section 408.2215 anleudel
revising the text above there
table remains unchange jj to rawj
follow,:
.
§408.22 Effluent limitation,
re 1edl 9 daw of i(llusns , . 1
reduction attainable by the
thS b t practicable c°n Vol
currently available.
Except as provided m s l2.3a . . ’.:iq
thrOugh 125.32, any s:dsting r oul -
source sub ject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluem
limitations representing the
effluent reduction attainable I
application of the beet prac
control technology currently av
(BPT):
‘
§407.82 Effluent Imitations guidelines
ds ree of effluent
reduction attainable by di. pllcatlon of
the blat tiCabIl ii1rel t 5CI1flOIOQ -
oiIVeiltiy available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point’
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the fol’owing effluent
limitations representing the degree of. .
effluent reduction attainable by the .
application of the best practicable
control technology currently avaiI bI
(BPT):
• a a a a
24. Section 407.84 ii amended b 3 r
revising the text above the table (the -
table remains unchanged) to readas -
follow,:
§ 407.84 Pvausalm..et stafldds
•JJating 5OUtCSS.
Any existing source subject to this.
subpart that introduces process.
wastewater pollutants into a publicly-
owned treatment works must comply. .
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
revising the text above the table (the -
table remains unchanged) to read as’
- follow,: .
§408.12 Emuest flmltation. guidelines
resweeisidng the degree 01 efflUent
reduction attalnabi. by the application of
ths beetpracllcabh. con Vol tscflnoiogy ..
cUlTSntiy available.
Except as provided In § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BY! ’):
a a a 5 -
3. Section 408.14 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the.,
table remains unchanged) to read a
follows: •
‘
4406.14 Prstrs.Wi. ..t sonidesde fea
exlatlflg eeurcee,
Any existing source subject to this’
subpart that introduces process. -
wastewater pollutants into a publicly’
• a • 5,
6. Section 408.2415 ameii ‘.. 1
revising the text above the t -
table remains unchanged) to mad .
follow,:.—
.
4408.24 Pmtiuau .i
eatsthig sources. .
. -t
Any existing source subject to tIn
subpart that Introduces process - —
wastewater pollutants into a publId .:n
owned treatment worksr “
With 40 R part 403. In add1tion,ti
following pretreatment standard
estiL Ishes the qiantity or q jfly
controlled by
d - .y owr
treatment v. iy a point wuz
Subject to the provisions of
a S ... a - a.. S.
7. Section 40&264a revised teJ èl
follow,:
.
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section which may be
dischai ed to a publicly owned
treatment works by any existing point -
source subject to the provisions of this -
subpart.
• • . a .
25. Section 407.86 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the’
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• • . . .
Any new source subject to
subpart that introduces proc8es’ .
wastewatag pollutants into a pubis
owned treatment works must caap
with 40 CFR 403.
‘
8. Section 408.32 is
revising the text above the table I
table remains unchanged) to
follows:
§408.28 Pr..1r 1a 5 t . i. ,J1 1 1k 1
hmq
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 125 / Thursday. June 29. 1995/ Rules and Regulations
339’
Effluent Umitations guideline.
, sssndng the degree of effluent
£ jctiefl atthlnable by tie eppll aUun of
d1 s ent , eUc Ii centiel todinelogy
cM_y available.
Except as provided In §4125.30
zough 125.32, any existing point
g,u ce subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
( SF1 1:
. . . .
g. SectIon 408.34 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table unchanged) to d as
follows:
P eent standards for
szlatIflg sources.
Any e dst1ng source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
waste water pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 R part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be ’
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the previsions of this subpart.
• • S • S
10. Section 408.36 is revised to read
as follows:
— 4408.38 etreawient stmid s fee new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a. publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. -
11. Section 408.42 is amended b ,v
revising the text above the table (the
table remkin unchanged) to read as
follows:
4408.42 Effluent limitations guidelines-
rs,...ss. .Ung the dsgr.s of effluent. . -.
redectiese attainable by V*apØlcation OI
the best practicabi. control tadinology,...
— avabab
E pt as provided in §4 125.3(1
through 125.32. any existing point.
source subject to this subpart shalL
achieve the following effluent
lim italionsiepresentlng the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the.
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BP’fl:
12. Section 408.44 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
4408.44 Pmtrsa8nssit sbiidards foe
erietlng sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• • S S S
13. Section 408.46 is revised to read
as follows:
4408.48 Pmtrcalmwl standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastowater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
14. Section 408.52 Is revised to rea4
as follows:
§ 408.52 Effluent lImItatIons guidelines
repreeenting the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
th beet practicable control technology
ourreney available.
Except as provided.in §4125.30
through 125.3Z, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
Limitations representing the degre. of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT): No pollutants may be discharged
which exceed 1.27 (0.5.inch) in any
dimension.
15. Section 408.54 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
4408.54 PreUeauvient standards for -
eidndng seurces.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the’
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of -‘
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• • a . .
16. Section 408 56 is revised to read
as follows:
4408.58 Pretrc tinisit standarde for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewatar pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
17. SectIon 408.62 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 408.82 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BFr):
S S • S a
18. Section 408.64 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
4408.84 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 R part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the previsions of this sub par
19. Section 408.66 is revised to read
as follows:.
4408.58 PreUe..Ln ,ent standards for new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
20. Section 408.72 Is revised to read
as followar -
4408.72 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing tim. degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beet practicabl, control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any exisU rig point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
-------
33942 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 125 / Thursday, tuna 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT): No pollutants may be discharged
which exceed 1.27 (0.5 inch) in any
dimension.
21. SectIon 408.74 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 408.74 P,etrsalmsnt standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that Introduces pnx.
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a poult source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
22. Section 408.76 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 408.78 Prvti’ , .Uii...t standards for nsw
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. -
23. SectIon 408.82 is amended b ,’-
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§408.82 Effluent Ilmitadens guIdellnss
representing th. degre. of effluent
reduction attalnabls by the application of -
the best practicabl. co . .tiU technology
cu,veneyavalI l e.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following affluent
limitations representing the degree eL
effluent reduction attainable by the-.
application of the best prnrI4 k1e
control technology currently available
(BP ’fl:
• • * a a
24. SectIon 408.84 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as.
follows:
§ 408.84 Pretreatment standds for
existing sources.
Any existing source sub ect to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• a a a a
25. SectIon 408.86 Is revised to read
as follows:
§408.88 Pretreatmiisnt standarda for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
26. Section 408.92 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:.
§408.92 Effluent lImitations guIdelines
repte. ,.nting the degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by the application oh. -
th. beet practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attnan hle by the -
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available--
(BPT):
• a a a a.
27. Section 408.94 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remana IinehAnged ) to read as.
follows:
§408.94 PraireatmonI s idds for
existing sources.
Any e sting source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality ot
pollutants or pollutant propertIes ...
controlled by this section which maybe.
riladiarged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
28. Section 408.96 is revised to read..
as foLlows:
§408.96 Preue .unent standards for new
sources.
Any new source subiect to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
29. Section 408.10 2 is revised to read
as follows:
§408.102 Effluent limItations gulduIn,..
reprelenting th. degre . of efflusnt
reduction at iabls by the appllealle, -‘
tue beet pracisebi . cos iDe l technology .
currently available.
Except as provided its § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT): No pollutants may be dischaig ..
which exceed 1.27 (0.5 inch) in arty.
dimension.
30. Section 408.104 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the-
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 408.104 Pretreatment dsndard. for -
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be.
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpaitj
31. Section 408. 106 is revised to reed
as follows:
§408.106 Prstisauna..t standards for nsw’
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introd zces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly.
owned treatment works must comply “
with 40 G’R part 403.
32. Section 408.112 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table rem inhs tinrhiinged ) to reed u
follows:
§408.112 Effhaunt lhrdtallesa g •’ 1 Ii•
the degree of effluent
reduction atueleable by th. application CS’
th beet pr.c 4i conlal tscflnolo
Except as provided’in §S 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall -
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the ‘ ,‘
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available’-;
(BPT):
• a • • .
33. Section 408.114 is amended by
revising the text above the tabie (the
table remains unchanged) to read ii
follows:
-------
Federal Regfster / Vol. 60, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29. 1995 I Rules and Regulations
339’
PUS.lflhIrit s Idards for
ucurce s .
source subject to this
• hpart that introduces process
1 tewater pollutants Into a publicly
treatment works must comply
40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
oUoWiXI8 pretreatment standard
0 bilshes the quantity or quality of
, llutantS or pollutant properties
jolled by this section which may be
jj iargedto a publicly owned
neatment works by a point source
sub ject to the provisions of this subpart.
I • • • I
34. Section 408.116 is revised to read
folloWS:
4QS.116 Pretieabuieiit standards for new
•ources.
My now source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
35. Section 408.122 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§408.132 Effluent ilmitatlone guideline.
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application ot
tiar best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall’
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attjiinsihle by the
applicatinn of the best practicable
control technology currently available..
(BPT):
I I I S I
36. Section 408124 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the-
table remains unchanged) to read as
follawai
§408.1 24 Pretreatment s idsnio for
editing eewoss.
Any existing source sub ject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part4o3. Inadditlon . the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
sub 1 ect to the provisions of this subpart.
37. Section 408.126 Is revised to read
as follows:
§ 408125 Pr.ba ant standards for near
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
38. Section 408.132 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§408.132 Effluent limitations guideline.
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beat practicable con Vol technology
currently available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• I I I S
39. Section 408.134 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 408134 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a,publiciy owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart..
40. Section 408.136 is revised to read
as follows:
§408136 Pretreatment stan ds for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this..
subpart that introduces process - -
wastewater pollutants into a publicly’. --
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. -
41. SectIon 408.142 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 408142 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subpect to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree oi
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
I I I I I
42. Section 408.144 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§408.144 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpn
• S I I I
43. Section 408.146 is revised to re.
as follows:
§408.148 Pretreatment standards for fl :
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 R part 403.
44. Section 408.152 is amended by
removing paragraph (a); redesignaung
paragraphs (b) introductory text, (bill
and (b)(2) as introductory text to the
section and paragraphs (a) and (b).
respectively revising the newly
designated introductory text to the
.,section to read as set forth below: anu
removing in redesignated paragraph (h
the words’1408.152(b)(1)” and addir.
in their place the words “ 408.152(a)
§408.152 EMuent limitations guidelines
rep.. ..a..Ung the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by tiar application of
the bust , .. U..Iile control technology
siu...utl iveliTh.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BF11:
• S I I I
45. Section 408.154 is amenued by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
-------
33944 Federal Register / Vol. 60.’ No 125 / Thursday. June 29. 1995 I Rules and Regulations
§408.154 PrIUSSUDIeI s idards for
.xi ng ea s. -
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403 In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
sublect to the provisions of this subpart.
46. Section 408.156 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table rempins unchanged) to read as
follows:
§408.156 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewatar pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply -
wflh 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart
• • U U •
47. Section 408.162 is amended by
removing paragraph (a).redesignadng
paragraphs (b) introductory text. (bXl)
and (b)(2) as introductory text to the
section and paragraphs (a) and (hI.
respectively; revising the newly
designated introductory text to the
section to read as set forth below: and-
in newly redesignated paragraph (bi. the
words ‘5408.162(bHl)” are removed.
and the words “ 408.162(a ” aiw -
inserted in their place to read as-
follows:
§408.152 EMuant limitations guId.IInss .. ’
. p..sI..ting
reduction atbun ls by the apØlsstioncl
the bout PfICtiC IS contiel tacIinaIog
curremtiy avxil is.
Except as provided In §5125.30.
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
. S S S S
48. Section 408.164 is amended by
revising the text above the table to read
as follows:
§408.164 Pretreatment standalds for
existing sources
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• a S • S
49. Section 408.166 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 408.160 Pretre.Imetit standards tea new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart
50. Section 408.172 is amended by -
removing paragraph (a): redesignatin ..
paragraphs (b) introductory text. (bK2)
and (bH2) as introductory text to the
section and paragraphs (a) and (b).
respectively: revising the newly
designated introductory text to the
section to read as set fort be1ow; in
newly redesignated paragraph (b) the -
words “S408.172(b)(1)” are removed
and the words “ 4D8.172 a)” are
inserted in their place to read as
followe
§408.172 Effluent limitation. guIdlIn.e,
.eidng the ef
reduction attaliseble by th appll..Uas, e4
thu bout pronticable conliul taLJ”Wogp. ’ -
casruntiy iveflabis.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing paini
source subject to this subpart shall-
achieve the following effluent’
limitations representing the degree of -
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
a
51. Section 408 174 is amended by
revs lng the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§408.174 Pre06etm ....t dsnddsfar .
exledng wuro
Any erdsUn source- sub ject to this ‘ -q ’
subpart that introduces process
wastewater poilutants into a publicly -
owned treatment works must comply- ,.
with 40 CFR past 403. In addition, ths
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may bs.
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
52. Section 408.176 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
tab’le re ’ ’ unchanged) to read as
foilowm
§408.176 Pretreatment standards for new -
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 R part 403. In addition. the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject.
to the prov .im of this subpart:
53. Soctiozr4O8.182 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table rm iT . .n dt .inged ) to read as
followai
§406.152 Effluent limItations gulddlnss ’
.preI.iUulg th degree of effluent.
reduction atbunable by the application at’
th. bust piacticabts nvat Iinolegy
— arutiobis
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
sowce subject to this subpart shall
achieve’tha following effluent
limitations representing the degree of-
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the-best practicable -
control technology currently available -
( ,. ‘1
• a I U S
54. Sectlan408.184.is amended by
revising th. text above the table (the. .
table n.nzin .unrIuingod ) to read as .
foilowar .
§406.184- Pretreatment standards for
existing sou,ces.
Any existing source subiect to this.
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the-
‘following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
S
I
-------
33945
oIJutantsOr pollutant properties
0 gtrolled by this section which may be
dIacb zPd to a publicly owned
t eatxnent works by a point source
5 ubjeCtto the provisions of this subpart.
a • • • a
55. Section 408.186 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 408.186 Pretreannent standards lo, new
soume
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In additioi the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
a a a a
56. Section 408. 192 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the.
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
*408.192 Effluent Ilmitadans guidelines
represenOng the dsgrse of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best piesticabi. wiUoI technology
cunsetly avai
Except as povided In § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attninnkle.by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(OPT):
a a a a a
57. Section 408.194 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the.
table remains unchanged) to read es
follows:
§408.186 Pr saUnmnt stand ds for
existing esurcue.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
58. Section 408.196 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains .InrhAnged) to read as
follows:
1408.196 PretiesUnid standards for new
aourc
Any new source subject to this
subpaxt that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
59. SectIon 408.202 Is amended by
removing paragraph (a); redesignating
paragraphs (b) introductory text. (b)(1)
and (b)(2) as introductory text to the
section and paragraphs (a) and (b).
respectively; revising the newly
designated introductory text to the
section to read as set forth below; in
newly redesignated paragraph (b) the
words “ 408.202(blll) ” are removed
and the words ‘ 1408.202(a) ” are
inserted in their place to read as
follows:
§405 0 ’ Effluent Imitation. guidelines
, ,..emndng fIts degres of effluent
reduction attainable by th application of
the beet practicable control technology-
currently available.
Except as provided In § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(OPT):
• a a • a
60. Section 408.204 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to road or.
follows:
1408.204 PreUeunnt standards for—
existing saurces.
Any existing source subject to this.
subpart that introduces process.
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
61. Section 408.206 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
followe .
1408.206’ Pi aabs.t staui ds for new
sourcee.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may b.
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source sub jec
to the provisions of this subpart:
62. Section 408.212 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§408.212 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applIcation of
the beat practicabl. control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT)
• a a a a
63. SectIon 408.214 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 408.214 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a pub liclv
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. En addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes.the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may bi
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
:th1 to the provisions of this subpart
64. Section 408.216 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table ren nIna unchanged) to read as
follows:
§408.210 Pretreatment standards for nei
sources
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastawater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 125 I Thursday , Juno 29, 1995 I Rules and Regulations
S.
-------
33946 Federal Register I Vol. 60, N o. 125 I Thursday, June 29. 1995 / Rules and Regulations
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
65. Section 408.222 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 4082fl Effluent limitations guidelInes’
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainabl, by th. application of
th. best practicable conb’oI technology
currendy available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction atti.inahle by the-
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• • a a a
66. Section 408.224 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
* 406.224 Pr.U i...t stand fee
existing sowess.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of.
pollutants or pollutant properties .
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
67. Section 408.226 is amended by
revising the text above the table(tha.
table remains unchanged to reed ax
follows:
§ 406 ‘ PreUsatni.ifl u daida for now
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
68. Section 408.232 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§40*212 Effluent limitations guidelines
rep...a&.Ung ths degree of effluent
reduction attainable by ths application of
th. best practicable control technology
currendy available.
Except as provided l.a §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• a a a a
69. Section 408.234 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table r mrnn unchanged) to read as
follows:
§406.234 Pretreatinunt standards fee
existing sources.
Any existing source subiect to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the-
following pretreatment standard
eitablishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned.
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• a a a a
70. Section 408.236 is amended by—
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§40& S Pretreebuent standards for now-
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publidy
owned treatment works must comply.
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment stnndnrd
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
• a . *
71. Section 408.242 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§406.242 Effluent Ihnltallons guldellnu
d degree of affluent
reduction attinabitby the application ,
the best pried cable centrol technology.
— eselleble.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control töchnology currently availabi,..
(BPT):
• • a a a
72. Section 408.244 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 406.244 Prel,eebn. ,.t standards for
existing owres&
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment-works must comply
with 40 R part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standazd - .
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may .
disch rged to a publicly owned
treatment works by-a point source ie,.
subject to the psovisions of this subpart
a a a • a
73. Section 408.246 is amended by- .a
revising the len a above the table (the
table g m in itni4uing d ) to read, as -
followsi
§ 406.246 P,s4i Unaifl .iL.idu fer nsu 4i
sources.
Any new source subject to this ‘4
subpart that Introduces process -
wastewater pollutants into a publicl
owned treatment works must comply”- J
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard -
esh.hliiahes the quantity or quality ot *
pollutants or pollutant properties ‘ “
controlled by this section which may
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source suli
to th. provisions of this subpart
74. Section 408.252 is amqnded byr
revising the text above the table (the. :
table rem i 9 unchanged) to read .
follows: - - -
§ 4082 2 Effluent limitations guldel -
the deges. of effluent
reduction attslnable by the appllcadeflQ’
the best practicable control tachnolOgi
currendy available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point -
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree c li
I
1
: ‘
•_ .1
-------
Federal Register. / Vol. 60. No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
3394
0 g iuent reduction attainable by the
8 npliCation of the best practicable
jiol t hnology currently available
. . • .
5. Section 408.254 is amended by
, yising the text above the table (the
table remains llnrhAnged) to read as
i&lows:
4O8.254 Pretre.lm.nt standards for
SOUIOSS.
y e,ast ng source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
f ,llowing pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• a a a a
76. Section 408.256 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
4408.258 Prefreatsient standards for new
aOUtce&
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 R part 403. In addition, the-
following pretreatment sa aia4 vd
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which maybe
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject-
to the provisions of this subpart
77. Section 408.262 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table rem ing tinrhnnged ) to read as
follows: .
4408.262 EMuent lImItations guidelines. -
relwsslnting Ills degree 01 effluent
reduction atben lsby the 01
me beet c is IiUoI taQuiUoq -.
oin.ntiy avefideish
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
liinitation representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
• . S • S
78. Section 408.264 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows;
§ 408.284 P,sbi ..Uu,...t standards for
existing sewues.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewatar pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or polititant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
:u1bJ to the provisions of this subpart.
79. Section 408.266 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
5408.288 PreIrsafte lt standards for new
sou rceL
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart
• a • a a.
80. Section 408.272 Is amended br
revising the text above the table (the.
table remaina unchanged) to read as.
follows:
§408.272 EMuent ILII.llons guIdelines
ie, 1 , ..ting Ills degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the 8L .J1o.i01
th. best piecticable contiet tedWkIo
aurendy aeelIabIe.
Except as provided in § 125.30.
through 125.32. any eiusting point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree oL -
effluent reduction attainable by the-
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available -
(BFfl:
* a a a a
81. Section 408.274 Is amended by-
revising the text above the table (the
table remains tinvhanged) to read as
follows:
§408.274 Prstisatmaiil standards fey
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to tha
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may ‘c
dlrhiiaged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpar
• a a a *
82. Section 408.276 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 408.276 Pretreatment standards for ne
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition. the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source sub;’
to the provisions of this subpart:
• • a a a
83. Section 408.282 is amended by
removing paragraph (a); redesignaun
paragraphs (b) introductory text. (b)( I
and (b)(2) as introductory text to the
section and paragraphs (a) and (bI.
respectively: revising the newly
designated introductory text to the
section to read as set forth below; in
newly redesignated paragraph (b). the
words “ 408.282(b)(1)” are removed
and the words “ 408. 282(a)” are
inserted in their place to read as.
follows:
° Effluent Umitadons guidelines
th. degree of effluent
reductic attainabl, by the application of
the beet practicable conSul tecimology
currendy avellable.
Except as provided in §5 125.30
through 125..32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attinni,hle by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BFF
• a s a a
84. Section 408.284 is amended by
revistng the text above the table (the
table remrnna. unchanged) to read as
follows:
§4’ .284 P, sJi .t standards for
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
-------
33948 Federal Register IVol . 60. No. 125 / Thursday,- June 29. 1995 1 Rules and Regulations
table rmiimna iinrhanged ) to read as
follows:
§ 408.306 PMm.lm t stsndar lot
eowes&
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality f
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subje
to the provisions of this subpart
92. Section 408.312 is amended b)I
removing paragraph (a): redesignatuig r
paragraphs (b) introductory text. (b)(i)
and (b)(2) as Introductory text to the
section and paragraphs (a) and (b).
respétively: revising the newly
designated introductory text to the
section to read as set forth below: in
newly redesignated paragraph (b) the
words “g408.312(b)(1)” are removed
and the words 1408.312(a)” are
inserted w theiz place to read as
• follows.
______ §408.31! Effluent ulm Itat lers guidelines. •.:1
_____ rs i. lluq is d. s of effluent
______ ______ rsductiøn at n ls by the pt ttwi ef
_____ the best piaailG.blseoeeof tsdino1oa
- —
Except as provided in § 125.30 •
through. 125.31. any existing point. .
source subjea to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitationarepresentuig the degree af’. I
effluent reduction attainable by the .-i
application of the best practicable.
control technology currently available
— (BFT)t . ,.s. - ‘S.
• • a a a .. a- a a . - -
90. Section 408.304 Is amended.by “ . jsamend bp
revising the text above the tAble (th. ‘ revising the text above tha table (ths
table remains iinrhanged) to read a’- - table rama”i . unchanged) to read as.’.’
followar foUow*” ’ ‘ -: -
g408 3O4 Presalnsnt fuslp .f . ’ •408.314• Pr;& l.. ,t . i..ta.i. .
existing -;;; .xiualg eouressi”
Anyexisting source subject to thi(
subpart that Introduces process _____
wastswater pollutants into a pubildy.
owned treatment works must comply;
with40 Rpan403.Inadditio i i. -
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality ct
pollutants or pollutant propertles
controlled by this section which ma l ’
discharged to a publidy owned :
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this sub
94 SectIon 408.316 je amended
revising the text above the table (thi
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be’
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart
88. Section 408.296 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 408.296 Pretreaensnt standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 R part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties. .
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart.
89. SectIon 408.302 Is amended by.
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read ae -
follows:
§408.302 Effluent Umitations guidelines
rsprsssntlng the degree of fftj 9
reduction ittalnabteby the IiL.U , ut ‘.-..
the beet pmcticable cenuul hnoIog
currentiy aveU
Except as provided In SS125.3 - •
through 125.32. any existing point’
source subject to this subpart shaIk
achieve the following effluant . . -
limitations representing the deeof . .
effluent reduction attainable by the.
application of the best.pth!*k1i . -
control technology currently avaiIablsi
(BPT):
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart
85. Section 408.286 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§408.281 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
86. Section 408.292 is amended by
removing paragraph (a); redesignating -
paragraphs (b) introductory text. (b)(1)
and (b)(2) as Introductory text to the
section and paragraphs (a) and fbi.
respectively: revising the newly
designated introductory text to the ’—
section to read as set forth below: in—
newly redesignated paragraph (b) the’ I
words “ 408.292(b)(1)” and adding In
their place the words “S 408.292(a)” err
inserted In their piece to-read as
follows:
§408.292 Effluent limitations guidelines
iupISISffllflg the degree of effluent
reduction attaln le by the plL.a1I . . ol -
th. best praclicaUs con Vol teeVoologr
currently avellaU..
Except as provided in §5 125.3O
through 125.32. any existing point! -
source subject to this subpart shell -“ - .
achieve the following effluent-’ - -
limitations representing the degree oF
effluent reduction atfainahl . by ths ’ —
application of the best-practicable -
control technology currently’ available’ -.
(BPT):
• a a a a
87. Section 408.294 is amsedid by
revising the text above the -tablb (the.’ --
table relnaing unchanged) to read as”
follows:
§ 08.294 Pretrsiunent standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publIcly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
Any existing source subject to this -
subpart that introduces process .
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must complM.
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition. ths.
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality oFt’
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned. -
- treatment works by a point source
:huhub0 to the provisions of this subpart.
91. Section 408.306 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 125 / Thursday. June 29, 1995 I Rules and Regulations
33949
le remains unchanged) to read as
Øow 5
PVSbSabseitt etmedirds fer.new
MY new source subject to this
g,pait that introduces process
wattewater pollutants into a publicly
ed treatment works must comply
4() CFR part 403. In addition, the
10 llowwg pretreatment standard
0 tablishes the quantity or quality of
jlutaflts or pollutant properties
ontrolled by this section which may be
jschaxged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
tothe provisions of this subpart:
I • • • a
g . Section 408.322 is amended by
vismg the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
folloWs
Effluent limitations guidelines
,ep,esenthig the degree of effluent
reductiOfl attainable by the application of
te best practicable conVol technology
cunently available.
Except as provided In §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the.
application of the best practicable -
control technology currently available
(BF1 ’J:
S • • U U
96. Section 408.324 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§408.324 Pvetreauneot atmidards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. in addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or poUutant properties’
controlled by this section which may be
diuth rged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• a a a a
97. Section 408.326 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§408.326 Pretreatment standards fOP flew
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
Owned treatment works must comply
With 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
98. Section 408.332 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 408.332 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable controi technology
cuwendy available.
Except as provided in §5 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
a a a a a
99. Section 408.334 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§408.334 Pretreatment stmsdds fee’
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this.
subpart that introduces process
wastdwater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be.
dIscharged to a publicly owned-
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
100. Section 408.336 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follower
§408.330 Pretreatment standards for new
eoureee.
Any new sourcp subject to this.
subpart that introduces process
westewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must complr
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the-
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
• a a • •
PART 409—(AMENDEDJ
In Part 409
i. The authority citation for part 409
continues to read as follows:
Authorlty Sacs. 301. 304 (b) and Ic), 306
(b) and (cj, 307(c) and (d), and 3 18 (b) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended: 33 U.S.C 1251, 1311. 1314 (b) and
Cc). 1316 (b) and (C), 1317 (C). and 1326(c).
86 Stat. 816 at seq.. Pub. L 92—500; 91 Stat.
1567. Pub. L 95—217.
2. Section 409.14 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows
§ 409.14 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart
• a . • .
3. Section 409.16 is revised to read as
follows:
§409.10 PreOWm.nt standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publidy
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 G R part 403.
4. Section 409.22 is amended by’
removing paragraph (a); redesignating
paragraphs (b) introductory text. (b)(i)
and (b112) as introductory text to the
section and paragraphs (a) and (b),
respectively; and revising the newly
designated introductory text to the
section to read as follows:
§4C9. Effluent tknltations guidelines
representing the degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best pisaU ab4 . control technology
Ciuu uU available.
Exceptas provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations repiesentang the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(HP ’ ) ’):
. a a S S
5. Section 409.24 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
-------
33950 Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
4409.24 PrUeeUneM standatds for
—
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• S S S S
6. Section 409.26 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 409.26 Pretreatment standards for new
sources. -
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 R part 403.
7. SectIon 409.32 Is amended by
removing paragraph (a); redasignating
paragraphs (b) introductory text. (bXi)
and (b)(2) as introductory text to the
section and paragraphs (a) and (b).
respectively; and revising the newly
designated introductory text to the
section to read as follows:
4409.32 Emuant Ilmitaffons guldailnu.
representing ths degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the appllc.Uan of -.
the best practicable ccsi 5el technology
cwrentiy available.
Except as provided in §4125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available’
(BPfl:
• • S • •
8. SectIon 409.34 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains iin .h nged) to readaa
follows:
§ 409.34 Prettealm.nl stundds for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater poLlutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. En addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may b
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• S • S S
9. Section 409.36 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 409.38 Pretresbeent standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
10. Section 409.42 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
4409.42 Emuent limitations guidelines
rupresunthig the degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beet practicable contrut technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
S S S S
S
ti. Section 409.52 is amended by
revising the uitroductory text.to read as
follows:
440952 Effluent limitations guidelines
. ., , ..Vng the degree at effttrent
reduction attalnabl. by the application of
the best practicable control technology
cunflyavaitathe.
Except as provided in §4125.30
through 125.32. and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (a) of this
section. any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the -
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
There shall be no discharge of process
westewater pollutants to navigable
watere.
• S S a
12. Section 409.82 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as.
follows.
4409.62 Emuent limitations guideline..
representing the degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of..
the beat practicabl, con tiol technology -
currently available.
Except as provided in §5 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
S S S • S
13.’Sectlon 409.72 is amended by -
revising the intruductori text to read a.
follows:
4409.72 EMuentIlmItationsguldeffn .
repreasning the d p of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
the beet practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (a) of this
section, any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve th
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applican
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
There shall be no discharge of procas -
waste water pollutants to navigable
waters.
• S S S S
14. SectIon 409.82 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read
follows:
4409.62 Effluent limitatIons guldelinee
repruassiting the degree of effluent
reduction atbenable by the application
the bust p,- ’1I-= lo Uul technology
currs,iffy svblt Ie .
Except as provided in §4125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of -
effluent reduction atinit Akle by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently availabi.
(BPT):
• • S S S
PART 411—(AMENDEDI
‘a.
In Part 411:.
1. The authority citation for part 4 l1a
continues to read as follows:
Aidharityr Sacs. 301.304(b) and (CL 3OS’ .
(b) and (ct, and sOltc) of the Federel WEW i
Pollution Control Act as amend.è 33 USCi .’
1251. 131L.1314(b)and(c), L316(bIIol .
and 1317(c); 88 Slat. 816 at eej., Puh I. Thu.. ..
5 91 Stat. 1587. Pub. L 95-217.
2. Section 411.12 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remaina imrhanged ) to read : -
follows:
4 411.12 Effluent lImitations guldilniS
rapree.itlng the degree of effluent
reduction attaInable by the appllcadat 4 ’
the best practicable con Vol teCSiflOlO
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing p 0 1 3 1
source subject to this subpart tuSh
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 125 I Thursday. June 29. 1995. / Rules and Regulations
33951
k ’.Ve the following effluent
“ IAUOUS representing the degree of
reduction attainable by the
‘ jicali 0 ’ of the best practicable
trol technology currently available
3 section 411.14 is amended by
ing the text above the table (the
ble remains unchanged) to read as
,liow5:
§411.14 Pretreatment standards for
sources. -
MY existing source subject to this
that introduces process
tewater pollutants into a publicly
0 wned treatment works must comply
xnth 4 O CFR part 403. In addition, the
f 0 uowIng pretreatment standard
sttabbshes the quantity or quality of
pollUt3flt3 or pollutant properties
i troUed by this section which may be
thscharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
. I * •
4. Section 411.16 is revised to read as
follows:
§411.16 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
5. Section 411.22 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§411.22 Effluent limitations guidelines
. .4rleunttng the degree of effluent
reduction attalnabl. by th. application of
his beet practicable contm l technology’
cunsndy available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subp t shal}
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of. -
effluent reduction attainable by the.
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available’.
(BPT):
• I a a a
6. Section 411.24 is amended by’
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as.
follows:
§411.24 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources,
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publidy owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
7. Section 411.26 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 411.26 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
‘with 40 CFR part 403.
8. Section 411.32 is amended by
removing the introductory text and
revising paragraph (a) (the table remains
unchanged) to read as follows:
§411.32 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing tile degre,e of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
th. best practicable control technology
currently available.
(a) Except as provided in §5 125.30
through 125.32. and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section. any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application.
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
9. Section 411.34 is amended by-
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as-
follows:
§411.34 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces procesa
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition; the
following pretreatment standard’
establishes the quantity or quality of -
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned-
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart’
10. Section 411.36 is revised to read
as follows:
§411.36 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewator pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
PART 412 .—(AMENDEDJ
In Part 412:
1. The authority citation for part 412
continues to road as follows:
Authority: Secs. 301, 304 (b) and (c), 306
(b) and (cj. and 307(c) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended: 33 U.S.C.
1251, 1311, 1314(b) and (C), 1316(b) and (c)
and 1317(c); 86 Stat. 816 et seq., Pub. L 92—
500; 91 Stat. 1567. Pub. L 95—217.
2. Section 412.12 is amended by
removing the introductory text and
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows
§ 412.12 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applicetlon of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
(a) Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section. any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the
following affluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT)
There shall be no discharge of process
waste water pollutants to navigable
waters.
• a a • a
3. Section 412.14 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table reI’ Ain* unchanged) to read as
follows:
§412.14 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process.
wastewater pollutants into a pub lic!v
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or polLutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged’ to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
4. SectIon 412.16 is revised to read as
followsi-
4412.1e Pretrealmant standards for new
sourees.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comulv
with 40 CFR part 403.
5. Section 412.22 is amended by
removing the introductory text and
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
-------
33952 Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 125 / Thursday, June 29. 1995 / Rules and Regulations
g412.V . Effluent Amitetiens guideline.
..pte.enth g the d. e . of sfffusnt
reduction stainable by Its application of
the best practicable control technology
— ivabaids.
(a) Except as provided In §S 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(EFfl:
• a a a *
PART 417—.(AMENDEDJ
In Part 417:
1. The authority citation for part 417
iithnue 5 to read as follows:
AuthoritT Sacs. 301. 304(b) and (c). 300
(li) and (cJ, and 307(c) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act as amended. (the Act);
33 U.S.C. 1251. 2311. 2314(b) and (c). 1318
(hi and (c) and 1317(c). 88 Stat. 810 at seq..
Pub. L 92-5O0
2. Section 417.12 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§417.12 EfflUent Umitetione guidelines-
• ..tlng the degree of eflivunt
reduction stainable by Ste apØ 0on of
the best p,acti contal
cwvuntiy evellabis.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(EPT):
• a S S S
3. Section 417.14 is amended by
revising the text above the table (th 1 , -
table remRin iiiwhi.nged ) to read as’
follows:
§417.14 P,l.t .. tgl... dfOr
existing sources.
Any exis6ng source subject to thin
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants Into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
4. Section 417.16 is revised to read as
follows:
§417.10 Prenealnuet saiidds for new
sovfce&
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
5. SectIon 417.22 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
417. Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beet pT.ctI I. contrel technology
currently evallabls 5
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• • .* a a
0. Section 417.24 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§417.24 PreveaOnent statdda for
exladng sources.
Any existing source subject to this.
subpart that introduces process:
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition. th.
following pretreatment standazd
establishes the quantity or quality of.
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpait
7. Section 417.28 is revised to read as
follows:
§417.20 Pmuuetin.ut s id foen
seurees.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works senat comply
with 40 CFR part 403..
8. Section 417.32 is amended by.
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§417.32 Effluent limitations guldelinee
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beet practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the dogs., -
effluent reduction attainable by tt. . 4 i..
application of the best practicable. - .
control technology currently avajl
(BPfl .
S S • S S
9. Section 417.34 Is amended
revising the text above the table (thy .:&
table remains unchanged) to read.,.
follows:
§417.34 Pvetreaunenl standards fm :
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this -
subpart that introduces process . .
wastewater pollutants into a
owned treatment works must comply .;
with 40 ( R pail 403. In addition,
following pretreatment standard . -.
establishes the quantity or quality of -.
pollutants or pollutant properties.
controlled by this section which
discharged to a publicly owned :‘
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subp . .
10. Section 417.38 is revised to rm.gt.
as follows:
§417.38 Petrealment standards far nec .
sources.
Any new source subject to this .,
subpart that introduces process .
wastewater pollutants into publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 QR part 403-.
11. SectIon 417.42 Ia amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table ui h*ngnd ) to read
follows:
§417.42 Effluent Umltetlens qulduIle
rep.senting the degree of effluent
reduction stainable by the appilceUmet
th.b practicable conoei tecimo’aj - J
cwreii t lysvui l a b le...
Except as provided in § 125.3&
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent ‘.
limitations representing the da esI
effhieat reductloa attainable by the9
appllcation.of thebest practicthle.
controlt.’ 4 ” Iogjcurzsntlysvaili
(BFF)i. -
• S • S S
12. Section 417.44 is amended bM
revisuigth. text above the table (thes
table r ”aAns ii. .i 4 iangsd ) to end
follows: . ,.
§417.44 Prstrustm .cfl stand d5 f *
existing sources.
Any existing source subieCtt ’
subpart that introduces procesS
wastewater pollutants into a i . ---
owned treatment works must
with 40 CFR part 403. In additioS.
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or qualitY’
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 125 I Thursday. June 29. 1995 I Rules and Regulations
33953
dUuta 51ts or pollutant properties
1 ,ijcroiled by this section which may be
di cjzasged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
bject to the provisions of this subpart.
I • • • a
13. Section 417.46 is revised to teed
follows:
i7.44 Pretreatment stenda.d5 for new
soUrCes.
new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
wgh 40 CFR part 403.
14. Section 417.52 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
4417.52 Effluent limitations guidelines
, . e.ent1ng the degree of effluent
,eduction attainable by the application of
use best practicable control technology
CWT’nIIY available.
Except as provided in §4125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• I S a S
15. Section 417.54 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains emrh nged) to read as
follows:
4417.54 P,etia.tm.nt standards far
eLating sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this se on which may be
di harged to a publicly owned
eatnent works by a point source-
subject to the provisions of this subpart
• I a a a
16. Section 417 56 Is revised to read
as follows:
4417.58 Prelrsalmeat s sd.ds far new,
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
Wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
Wflh 40 CFR part 403.
17. Section 417.62 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
Follows.
§ 417.62 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing ths degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by th eppII a1Ion of
the best practicable contrul technology
currently avallabi..
Except as provided in §4125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• a • a
18. Section 417.84 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
4417.64 Pretreatme.t standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this.
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart
19. Section 417.66 is revised to read
as follows:
4417.68 Preti.1m.t siendards far n
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly.
owned treatment works must comply-
with 40 CFR part 403.
20. Section 417.72 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
3417.72 Effluent limitations guidelInes
replewiting Ins degree of effluent
reduction attainabl, by th application of
tire best practicable control tschnolegy
cuawitly available.
Except as provided in §4125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
21. Section 417 74 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§417.74 Pretleatnent standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
22. Section 417.78 is revised to read
as follows:
§417.78 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
23. Section 417.82 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§417.82 Emuent lImItations guidelines
. up..&l..tlng In. degree of effluent
reduction lnab4e by the application of
In. best control technology
cuvrentiy s Iabls.
Except as provided in §4125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• a I * I
24. Sect1od 417.84 as amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table rem ins unchanged) to read as
follower
4417.84 Peetr.,.lm.,1 ensidaids for
.xlatng eewc
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publidy owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart
25. SectIon 417 86 is revised to read
as follows:
-------
33954 Federal Register / Vol.
60. No. 125 I Thursday. June 29.1995/ Rules and Regulations
§417.81 PreUeabnent standards for new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly,
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
26. Section 417.92 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 417.92 Emuent Ilmftatione guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• a a * a
27.’ Section 417.94 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§417.94 Pml ...L..ent standards for
existing sources..
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• a a a a
28. Section 417.96 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 417.96 PrstrImnt standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this -
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
29. Section 417.102 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 417.102 Effluent limitatIons guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BFI ’):
a a * 0 a
30. Section 417.104 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§417.104 Pretreatment standard, for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
31. Section 417.106 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 417.106 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
32. Section 417.112 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 417.112 Effluent limItations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beet practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point.
source subject to this subpart shall.
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(DPi ’):
• a a a •
33. Section 4 17.114 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 417.114 Pretreatment standards for
exIsting sources..
Any existing source subiect to this
subpart that introduces process
waslewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subp .
34. Section 417.116 is revised to
as follows:
§ 417.116 Pretreatment standards far
sources.
§417.122 Effluent limitations guld i, .
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application at
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of -
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable -
control technology currently avamlabl
(BPT):
a a a a a
36. Section 417.124 is amended by.:
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§417.124 PrstrsaUrta.,tstandardslcr
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to thia
subpart that introduces process
wastowater pollutants into a publicly ’-E
owned treatment works must comply’:
with 40 CFR pail 403. In addition. thee
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of ,
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which nay
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this sub
a a a a a
37. Section 417.126 is revised to -
as follows:
§ 417.126 Pretreatment standardS (aries
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publid
owned treatment works must complf ””
with 40 CFR part 403.
38. Section 417.132 is amended by”
revising the text above the table (th.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
35. Section 417.122 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 125 / Thursday. June 29. 1995 I Rules and Regulations
33955
- ins unchanged) to read as
.132 Effluent Umitaif one guideline.
Ills dig ! .. of effluent
v’f’ i• the ap n e. of
efpieCtlO lS conffvl technology
ndyai”I
5 cceptas provided in § 125.30
L.flugb 125.32. any existing point
W Ui e subject to this subpart shall
sieve the following effluent
‘ ationS representing the degree of
jeilt reduction attainable by the
pIiCatOD of the best practicable
,‘ zitrol technology currently available
( rfl;
a • • a
39. Section 417.134 is amended by
,yising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
( , llows:
1417.134 Pretreatnent standards for
1 gsdng sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
estabhshes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• a • • a
40. Section 417.136 is revised to read
as follows:
4417.135 Psetreannent standards for new
sourcs
Any new soui sub ject’ to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
41. Section 417.142 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the’
table rempin . unchanged) to read as..
follows:
4417.142 Effluent UmlIaflass guidelines
ispse.....Ung the de . of effluent
refucIlon attalnatis by the louIloa ef
best pi- i.
nemnhly avellabis,
Except as provided In fi 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
Iunitations representing the degre. of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• • a a a
42. Section 417.144 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§417.144 Pr. Vs.Im.iI sbesd.rdu tar
.xls*fng seumes.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subiect to the provisions of this subpart.
43. Section 417.146 is revised to read
as follows:
§417.148 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 R part 403.
44. Section 417 152 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
§417.152 Effluent Ilmitadons guidelines
the degre . of effluent
rsduchlon attelnatlo by th. eppikaliwi of
ths best practicable co. Vel technology
aurundy available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• a a a a
45. Section 417.156 is amended by
revising the introductory text to send as’
follows:
§417.166 Prstiealm...I idarda for n
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standards.
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties,
controlled by this section. which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart.
• a a a •
46. Section 417. 162 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
§417.162 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduchlon attelnebis by the app&..tlen of
the best practicable control technology
cun.nhly avallabis.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• a a • S
47. Section 417.166 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
§417.165 PseUe.lment standards for new
sourc
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties.
controlled by this section. which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source sub jec:
to the provisions of this subpart.
48. Section 417.172 as amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§417.172 Effluent limItations guidelines
. ..prsuasung the degres of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best prachl 4. contml technology
cwvenhly available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• . e a a
49. Section 417.176 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
§417.175 Prelr.sbn.,d s sdards for new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a pubLicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. En addition, the
following pretreatment standards
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties.
controlled by this section. which may be
discharged to a publidy owned
-------
3395G Federal Register I Vol. 60, tJo. 125 / Thursday. June 29. 1995.! Rules and
treatment works by a new source suhljct
to the provisions of this subpart.
50. Section 417.182 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 417.182 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology.
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• • . • *
51. SectIon 417.186 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as.
follows:
§417.188 Pvetraebnent standardsfor new
sources.
Any new source subject to thin
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CPR part 403. In addition. the
following pretreatment standards’
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties..
controlled by this section. which inay.be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpazL
• • S S S
52. Section 417.192 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows: . -
§ 417.192 Effluent flmltatlon.guldeUns.
representing the dg.e of effluent
reduction attaln 4s by tiw application of
the bust practicable ceneol technology
cunonhlyavall e .
Except as.provlded In §5125.30’
through 125.32, any existing point.
source subject to this subpart shall.
achieve the Foll&wing effluent -
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
. • S S •
53. Section 417. 194 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as-
follows:
5417.194. Piebsatmant steadaids 101
ebletingeetucsa.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces p i
wastewater pollutants into a publidy
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
54. Section 417.198 is revised to read
as follows:
§417.198 Pretisabsanl standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
wIth 40 CFR part 403.
PART 418—(AMENDEDI
En Part 418:
1. The authority citation for part 418
continues to read as follows:
Autbortty 33 U.S.C 1251 e t seq..
2. SectIon 418.12 ii amended by . - ‘
revising the introductory text to read so ,
follows:
4418.12 Effluent Ilmitatiens guldellnee-
representing the degre, of effluent-
reduction attainable by the appll on 04-
th. best practicable control technology .
cunentiy available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent-
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable.
control technology currently available..
(BFfl: . .
S S S • S
3. Section 418.22 Is-amended by -
revising the text above the table (the
table rem inA iiri .ksiiged ) to read as
follows:
4418.32 Effluent thnltationsguldelln.s.
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of -
the best practicable control technology.
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall.
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently.
(BPT):-
• S S S S
4. SectIon 418.32 Is aj
revising the intz ductoryi
follows: -.
§418.32 Effluent limitation,
representing the degree of eff, , -..
reduction attainable by the
the best practicable control
currently available.
Except as provided in §5 125 ,3G
through 125.32. any existing p ti$
source subject to this subpart shaiui.
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degr ,
effluent reduction attainable by tb,
application of the best practic j 51 .
control technology currently av
(BPT): -
* * S S S
5. Section 418.4213 amended
revising the text above the table (th
table remains unchanged) to d
followe. .
4418.42 Effluent limitations gulduit .
..,, 1 , smnting the degree of effluent.-
reduction attainable by the appllcatlen
the best practicable control tecl%noIn ..
currently available.
Except as provided in §5 1253O:,
through 125.32. any wasting point S
source subject to this subpart sba1J
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree
effluent reduction attainable by the4l
application of the best practicable. j i
control technology currently availth
(BFfl: j
S. S S S S
0. Section 418.52 is amended by
revising the introductory text to resd
follows:
§4I8. Effluent lImitations guidelIn
rspiea.nting the degree of effluent
reductlen attainable by the applicatiousE
lbS bust practicebl. centrel tecflnele
currently available.
Except as provided in §5 12S.3O
through 12S.32, any existing pointi
source subject to this subpart sba11
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degzint
effluent reduction attAinAble by thi
application of the best pracdcable
control technology currently aveila
(BPfl:
• - * S S S
7. Section 418.62 is revised to
followrc
-.,
4418.02 Effluent limitations guld5
representing the degree of effluent . .
reduction attainable by the applicadC’
the best practicable control techMlO 8l
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30-
through 125.32, any existing point
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 125 / Thursday. June 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
33957
t0 this subpart shall
following effluent
the degree of
iebleby the
of the best practicable
y currently available
be no discharge of
wUt water pollutants to
waterS.
‘ ectiofl 418.72 is revised to read as
IioW5
Effluent limitations guidelines
the degree of effluent
attainabl, by the application of
‘s PTOCtIC IS confrol technology
ndy SVWIab I.
ExcePt as provided in §9125.30
ough 125.32. any ensting point
subject to this subpart shall
iueve the following effluent
jtauons representing the degree of
j uent reduction attainable by the
pliCatl0fl of the best practicable
ntrol technology currently available
3rfl: There shall be argo of
waste water pollutants to
avigable waters.
ART 424—{AMENDEDI
In Part 424:
i. The authority citation for part 424
oncinues to read as follows:
Autbority Secs. 301. 304 (bland (c). 306
) sad (c). 307(c) of the Federal Water
‘oUution Control Act, as amended
251. 1311. 1314 (bland Cc). 1318(b) and Cc).
317(c); 88 Stat. 81601 seq.. Pub. L 92—500:
i Stat. 1587. Pub. L 95-217.
2. SectIon 424.12 Is aman Iiid by
svising the text above the table (the
ible remains unchanged) to read as
,llows:
424.12 Effluent limitations guldUhI .
S w d .so of efituset
iducdon attalnabi. by Si. applL.alloo of
ii beet practicable con Vol tschnologp
lairentiy avallablo.
Except as provided in §5125.30
lirough 125.32. and subject to the
novisions of paragraph (a) of this
action, any existing point SOiU
.ubject to this subpart shall achieve the
ollowing effluent limitations
epresenting the degree of effluent
eduction atIains h1e by the application
)l the best practicable control
ethnology currently available (RP’fl:
3. Section 424.16 is revised to read as
ollows:
.424.16 Prsesaun...1 ste.. ds for new
urcsa.
Any new source subject to this
ubpart that introduces process
vestewater pollutants into a publicly
wned treatment works must comply
1th 40 FR part 403.
4. Section 424.22 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remaina unchanged) to read as
follows:
§424.fl Effluent limitations guldelins,
replee.ating Si degres of effluent
reduction attainable by the epplicatiesi of
the bust practicable cenVol technology
currentiy available.
Except as provided in §9125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• a a a a
5. Section 424.26 is revised to read as
follows:
9424.26 P ieue.Unent standards for new
soureee.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
6. SectIon 424.32 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains uriithnnged) to read as
follows:
9423.12 Effluent fl,nj flg %sguIdellns,.
Ss degies of effluent -
reduction atbenabis by 55 eppli ltnn of
the bent Uk ls contrel technology.
cwr Uy ee .
Except as provided in §9125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT)
• a a a a
7. Section 424.36 is revised to read as
follows:
9424.16 PvsUu.Un..4 u idsids for now
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
0. Section 424.42 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remaina unchanged) to read as
follows:
9424.42 Effluent limitations guideline.
representing ths degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
55 bust practicab’s c .nVol technology
cwvsntiy vallabis.
Except as provided Ia §5125.30
through 125.32. and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (a) of this
section. any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPTJ:
9. Section 424.52 is revised to read as
follows:
9424.52 Effluent limitations guidelIne.
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
S. best practicable con Vol technology
currendy available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (a) of this
section. any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
There shall be no g4icrha,ge.of process
waste water pollutants to navigable
waters.
10. SectIon 424.62 Is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
9424.82 EfflUent limitations guideline.
...preuoting S. Je .a of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beet precflr i 4 00 .IVUI technology
cunidy available.
Except as provided in §9125.30
through 125.32, any wasting point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the bat practicable
control technology currently available
(EFfl:
• 0 •• • 0
11. SectIon 424.72 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table zem tna tinrhanged ) to read as
follows:
3434.12 Effluent miiftallwis guideline.
. ..prsnandng S. degree of effluent
reduction atbenabi. by Vi. appll.auon of
Sis beet p, Oc ls co, .V 4 technology
onruntiy available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
-------
33958 Federal Reejster I Vol. 60, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 1995 I Rules and Regulations
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPTJ:
• • . • .
FART 426 (AMENDEDI
Ira part 426:
1. The authority citation for part 426
continues to reed as Follows:
Authority Secs. 301. 304 (b) and (c i. 306
(b) and (C). 307(c). and 316(b) of the Federal
Water PollutIon Conizol Act, as amended: 33
U.S.C. 1251. 1311, 1314. 1316(b) and (c)
1317(b); 86 Stat. 816 Ct seq., Pub. L. 92—500;
91 Stat. 1567. Pub. L. 95—217.
2. Section 426.16 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph (b)
and adding introductory text to read as
follows:
4426.16 Pr Vsetisoiit slandds for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
:11th 40 CFR part 403.
3. Section 426.22 is revised to tend as
follows:
4426.22 Effluent limitations guidelines
rep. san1lng the dsgrss of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
curreedy available.
Except as provided In § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall.
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree oL
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently avallAhie
(BPT): There shall be no discharge.of
process waste water pollutants to .
navigable waters.
4. Section 426.24 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the.
table remains iiiwhianged) to read as’
follows:
4420.24 Pvetrsabwil atandsitla for
existing aoutc
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition. the.
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutant.s or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• S S S S
5. Section 426.26 is revised to read as
follows:
4426.26 Pretreatment stmidaids far new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
6. Section 420.32 is revised to read as
follows:
4426.32 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beet practicabl. control technology
currendy available.
Except as provided in §4125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT): There shall be no discharge of
process waste water pollutants to
navigable waters.
7. Section 426.34 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
4426.34 PrsU 1mant standeids for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition. the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart..
8. Section 426.36 Is revised to read as
follows:
4426.30 Preuualm...t standards for nsee
5oui,c.s.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
9. Section 426.42 is amended by
revising the text above the table Ithe
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 426.42 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology.
currendy available.
Except as provided in §5 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart si 4
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the de .
effluent reduction attainable by thi.
application of the best Practicabi, , t
control technology currently evif
(BPT):
• • a a •
10. Section 426.44 is amend j
revising the text above the table (tb,
table remains unchanged) to reada., .
follows:
4426.44 Pretreatment standa,
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to thh
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publjcj ,
owned treatment works must comply.
with 40 CFR pail 403. In addjtjo 1 1
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality aL..
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may)
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpes
11. Section 426.46 is revised to
as follows:
§426.48 Pretreatment standards for n
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process -
wastawater pollutants into a publicly. .i
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
12. Section 426.52 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table revnAin4 unchanged) to read as
follows:
4420.52 Effluent limitations guldiin
.uwseuiting thi degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by the application cM
the best practicable conepi technoIogp
currently available.
Except as provided in §4125.30 ‘
through 125.32. any existing point ‘Mj
source subject to this subpart shall -
achieve the- following effluent !.
limitation, representing the degree e
affluent reduction att inishle by tha.
application of the best practicable
control technology currently aviii1
(BFfl: • •.•
13. Section 426.50 is revised to
as follows: -
• 426.50 Pretreatment standards lot
source
Any new source subject to this ‘
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publiclY
owned treatment works must compiY”
with 40 CFR part 403.
14. Section 426.62 is amended bT
revising the text above the table (thr’
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 125 / Thursday. June 29, 1995 I Rules and. Regulations
33959
•1 ” -
: - InlhRnged) to read as
— M sese —
i ng d . degre . of effluent
— nable by the apØlea en of
ø eCdcab IC0fltrolt1dm01og,
.dy $VSIISblS .
Z apt as provided in 125.30
125.32. any existing point
tb °. ubjeCt to this subpart shall
‘ V6 the following effluent
tons representing the degree of
reduction attainable by the
° i catio of the best practicable
gdt° 1 technology currently available
rn
iS. Section 426.64 is amended by
y sing the text above the table (the
ble relna ias unchanged) to read as
foUow s :
Pretreatment standards for
—
y existing source subject to this
tubpat that introduces process
agewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
th 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
tablishe5 the quantity or quality of
pollutantS or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
scha1ged to a publicly owned
eatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• • a e .
16. SectIon 426.66 is revised to read
at follows:
5421.88 Prsli bji.nt atandsads for new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewaler pollutants into a publicly-
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
17. Section 426.72 is amended by-
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read an
follows:
5488.72 Effluent llmlta8ens guidelines
. ,........U..g ta. d. ea of effluent
redueSon at nabls by the i5I - “i of
ths best pruciI control te hflolOqy
CuHU..U avellabIs.
Except as provided In §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
Control technology currently available
(BP’fl:
• a a a
18. SectIon 426.76 is revised to read
as follows:
5420.76 Pretrblm.uI idonIs for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
19. SectIon 426.82 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows
§ 428.82 Effluent limitations guldeilnee
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best piau ,.&cubIe control technology
cun’endy available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• a a a a
20. SectIon 426.86 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 421.88 Pr U stmarit standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of-
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the provisupns of this subpart.
Because of the recognition that animal
- and vegetable oils can be adequately
removed in a publicly owned treatment
works, whereas mineral oil may not be
readily removed and may pass through
untreated, two separate limitations are
established.
• a a a a
21. Section 426. 102 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remaina unchanged) to read as
follows:
5421.1w Effluent Umitallons guidsikise
. .a fldAg tire de s of efihaunt
reduction attainable by the glkUon 0
th. best psecticabi. control technology
—
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following emuent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the. best practicable
control technology currently available
(BP ’fl:
a * a a a
22. Section 426.106 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§421.106 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
23. Section 426.112 is amended by
revising the text above the table the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 421.112 Effluent limitations guIdelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attalnabi by the applicatIon of
the best practicable control technology
currendy available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluan t reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT). (The fluoride and lead
limitations are applicable to the abrasive
polishing and acid polishing waste
water streams while the TSS. oil, and
pH limitatIons are applicable to the
entire proces. waste water stream):
• a a a •
24. Section 426.116 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains InrhAnged) to read as
follows:
§426118 Pre*siu Iiswnt standards far new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 4O3 In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
Because of the recognition that animal
-------
33960 Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 125 / Thursday. June 29. 1995 I Rules and Regulations
and vegetable oils can be adequately
removed in a publicly owned treatment
works, whereas mineral oil may not be
readily removed and may pam through
untreated, two separate limitations are
established.
* S S S S
25. Section 426.122 Is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
4426.132 Effluent Nmltaffons guidelines
repres.ndng the degree of effluent
reduc on attainable by the appllcallon of
the best practIcable con Vol technology
CWTSfltIy available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
a a S * a
26. Section 426.126 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 42$.12 Preveatinent standarde for new
eoureee.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
w ith4 OCFRpat4O3.Inaddition.the ’ -
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of-i
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section whIch may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
Because of the rvwgnition that an miii ”
and vegetable oils can be adequately
removed in a publicly owned treatment-
works, whereas mineral oil may not be
readily removed and may pass through
untreated, two separate limatatimis aiw- -
established.
• • • • - • e
27. Section 426.132 Is amended by
revising the introducto text to read an
follows:
• 426.132 Effluent Umltaeon.guld.Unee -
rsfIles.uthsg the degree of effluent
reductIon attainabl, by the applicatIon of
th best practicable control tedinology
surrentIy available.
Except as provided in §5123.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BP ’fl:
• • S S •
28. SectIon 426.136 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remain s unchanged) to read as
follows:
4426.130 Prstrsalme..t tandurds for new
sourese.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment stanihnrd
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
PART 427—(AMENDEDJ
In Part 427:
1. The authority citation for part 427
continues to read as follows:
Autherity Sacs. 301. 304 (b) and (c), 306
(b) and Ic). 307(c). Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended: 33 U.S.C. 1251.
1311. 1314 (bland (c) 1316(b) and Cc).
1317(c); 86 Stat. 816 at seq.. Pub. L 92—600.
2. Section 427.12 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read an
follows:
§427.12 Effluent limitatIons guIdelines.-
rap..esndng th. degree of effluent
reductIon attainable by the applicatIon ci
the best practIcable wWul technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to thfs subpart shall
achieve the following effluent -
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainahle by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
a S • • S
3. Section 427.14 is amended by,
revising the text above the table (the.
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
4427.14 PreVsatm...t etan de fee
existIng sources.
Any existing source subject to this.-
subpart that introduces process..
wastewater pollutants into a publicly.
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly ownadT!
treatment works by a point so
subject to the provisions of this
4. Section 427.18 is revised to
follows:
4427.16 Pretreatment . id.,j .
scum ‘
Any new source subject to this ‘ 1
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a pU IJ ‘
owned treatment works must con iply
with 40 CFR part 403. -
5. Section 427.22 is amended by.
revising the text above the table (th..
table rerasina unchanged) to read
follows:
§427.32 Effluent limitatIons guidsilass
repluenflng ths degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by the appIIca
the best practI le con Vol technology
currently av aliab ls:
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall -
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the -
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available.
(BPT):
• a * a •
6. Section 427.24 is amended by
revising the text above the table (th..
table remains nnriiauged) to read as’
follows: . I
4427.24 P!strsabviao stands’ds fer .“
ex* lg sources.. :
Any existing source subject to this . ‘
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a public1y-”t
owned treatment works must comply n z
with 40 R part 403. In addition. t ii
following pretreatment standard “
establishes the quantity or quality of .
pollutants or pollutant propenies .:iaC
controlled by this section which msy
1I irthargad to a publicly owned ‘
treatment works by a point sourca
sunsofth i ssubp
7. SectIon 427.261. revised to
follows:
4427. Prues,lni.nI sta dadsføi -
Any new source subject to this -
subpart that introduces process ‘
wastewater pollutants into a public
owned treatment works must cosiply 4.,
with4 OCFRpart4O3.
8. Section 427.32 is amended by .
revising the text above the table (the
table rev .n .n unchanged) to read ss’.i
Icillows:
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 125 I Thursday. June 29. 1995 I Rules and Regulations
33961
! gmuent Hmltetionu guidelines
lbs degies of effluent
. 8!telfl lI by the application of
F s psecticable conbul technology
g. y aV iI
r g pt as provided in § 125.30
i...i ugh 125.32. any existing point
subject to this subpart shall
0 kjOVO the following effluent
tadoOS representing the degree of
‘ ent reduction attainable by the
“UcatiOn of the best practicable
1 ’ cjvl technology currently available
p471.34. Prebsabuent etsedaids for
eourc
y e,asting source subject to this
ujpart that introduces process
.,estewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
mtmlled by this section which may be
djscharged to a publicly owned
zeaent works by a point source-
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• a a a a
10. SectIon 427.36 Is revised to-read
a i follow&
gaZTiI Preesetm.m standards for new
Any new souace subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 R part 403.
11. Section 427.42 Is amended by.
revising the text above the table (the.
table rem in nnr-h ng d ) to read .
followr - -
4V.42 Effluent llinItaIons guIdelbt ...
•.,.......lLig lb. d.i r of efftuent•
ridection attaInable by lbS ipplicaben of..
the best practic a btseanuul technology
acruuti ivel1abl
ExceptasprovidadinSS lzL3O
through 125.32. any eiastlng point - .
source subject to this subpart shall
achiev, the following effluens
ilmitatlons repreeentlng the degree oL ’
oUluent reduction ani,inghle by thsu
application of the best practicable.
control technology currently available.
(BPTJ:
• a • a a
12. Section 427.44 is amended by
revisuig the text above the tableith.
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§427.44 Pesue.Vui..t standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 R pezt 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
a a a a a
13. Section 427.48 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 421.41 Prelieabneet s idwde for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
14. Section 427.52 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 427.52 Effluent limitations guideline.
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applicatien of
the best practicable conbul technology
airrendy available.
Except as provided in §4125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology.currentiy available
(BPT): There shall be no discharge of
process waste water pollutants to
navigable waters.
15. Section 427.54 is amended by.
revising the text above the table the
table remains unchanged to read as
follows:
§42134 Prstre.Wi., .t a dards for.
edabog
Any existing source subject to thi.
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 Q’R part 403. In addition. the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section whIch may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• a a a a
16. Section 427.56 is revised to read
as follow.:
§ 427.36 PruueaVnint standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
17. Section 427.62 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 421.62 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable conVel technology
curventiy available
Except as provided in §4125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
sou.rce subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPTJ:
a a a a a
18. SectIon 427.64 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 427.64 Pretreabnent standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
19. Section 427.66 is revised to read
as follows:
Any new source subject to this
subpart thab intreducee pro ..
wastewa or pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 Q’R pail 403.
20. SectIon 427.72 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
4421.72 Effluent llmltadone guidelines
rep .Ung lbs degree of effluent
reduction atndnable by the application of
thi, bust practicable conbul technology
cunsndy avadabis.
Except as provided in §4125.30
through 125.32. any amstlng point
source subject to this subpart shall
g. Sect Ion 427.34 is amended by
the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
4421.66 Prubs.zm.,t standards for new
-------
33982 Federal Ragist / VoL 60. No. 125 I Thursday. June 29. 1995/ Rules and Regulations
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the beet practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT)
• U U U U
21. Section 427.74 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§427.74 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which way be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
22. Section 427.76 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 427.76 Preneetinent standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
23. Section 427.82 is revised to tead
as follows:
9427.82 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the zippllcaUon of
the best practicable cannel tecimolegy
currendy available.
Except as provided in §S 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of.-
effluent reduction attn nnhle by the
application of the best practicable-
control technology currently available
(BPT): There shall be no discharge oi
process wastowater pollutants to
navigable waters.
24. Section 427.86 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the. -
table remAini .inrhi.ngsd) to read as
follows:
§427.86 Preireeunent sewdai for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality oi
pollutants or pollutant properties.
controlled by this section. which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source
:ubi0 to the provisions of this subpart.
25. Section 427.92 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 427.92 Effluent imitations guidelines
representIng the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable cenbol tecilnolegy
cerrentiy available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
U U U U U
28. Section 427.98 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 427.96 Preueaunent standards foe new
sources.
Any new source subject to this.
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties.
controlled by this section. whIch may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the provisions of this aubpart.
27. Section 427.102 is revised to read
as follows:
4427.192 Effluent limItations guidelines
retwss. ,iting the degree of effluent
reductien nable by the application ef- ’
the best practicable cone-of
— a — -
Except as provided in §4125.30
through 125.32. any existing point.
source subject to this subpart shalL. . ...
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree oL.
effluent reduction attsunahle by the
application of the best practicable -
control technology currently available
(BPT): There shall be no discharge of
process wastewater pollutants to
navigable waters.
28. Section 427. 106 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as..
follows:
§421i01 Prutu.Una..t
Any new soume subject to t j d
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a pub
owned treatment works must
with 40 CFR part 403. In additj
following pretreatment standa .
establishes the quantity or quality
pollutants or pollutant propem : t.
controlled by this section, which in
discharged to a publicly owned “
treatment works by a new
subject to the provisions of this subpu
29. Section 427.112 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the ,.
table remains unchanged) to read a
follows:
4427.112 Effluent lImItatibne gu .
representing the degree of efflue,tt
reduction attaInable by the appllca , ‘,
the best practicable cone-el technol
cuvventiy available.
Except as provided in §4125.30
through 125.32. any existing point -,
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent -
limitations representing the degree of:
effluent reduction attxinnhle by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently availa is .
•UU
30. Section 427.116 is amended by -
revising the text above the table (the-. .
table re” ”I— uni .ha.iged ) to read as -
follows:
4427.110 Prslieaisie..i atand.id . far j
saucee.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process -
westewatar pollutants into a publidy
owned treatment works must comply.-
with 40 Q ’R part 403. In addition. tle
following pretreatment standard .j-.
establishes the quantity or quality aL
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section. whidi my
- dlschai?ged to a publicly owned
treatment works by anew point
subject to th. provisions of this wbpuê
PART 4 .-(AMENDEOJ 4
InPart42 Si
1. The authority dtation for part -
continues to read as follows:
Authorlty Seca 301. 3O4(b)afldICL3st ’
(b) and (c i. 307(c). Federal Water PoUu1i
Consul Act, as amended: 33 U.S C tl
1311. 1314(b) and (ci. 1316 J) aizdlcL
13 17 (c ); 88 St 810 eta q.. Pub. L. 9Z ’
2. Section 428.12 is amended by . -:
removing the introductory text 6 °d
revising the text above the table tile
-------
t.
Federal Register 1 Vol. 60, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 1995 I Rules and Regulations
33963
unchanged) in paragraph
• tiil as follows:
2 gffluent lhiiltallons guldeUi— s
I iiidug th degre. of effluent
I*’ , g g attainable by the application ot
• pmclicabla con Vol technology
as provided in § 125.30
.nugh 125.32. any existing point
UJ subject to this subpart shall
‘i.ieve the following effluent
tatiO0 5 representhig the degree of
iieni reduction attainable by the
licatiOfl of the best practicable
g ttOl technology currently available
(5p1 ’):
S • • •
. Section 428.16 is revised to read as
hilows:
Pretreatment standards for new
new source subject to this
part that introduces process
wastewatet pollutants into a publicly
0 ned treatment works must p1y
with 40 CFR part 403.
4. Sectiofl 428.22 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
ILoLlows
; 421.28 Effluent Imitations guideline. -
,.,,ethig the degres of effluent
,of’ cden attelnablo by the application of
beet practicable control technology
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
affluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BFfl:
• S S S S
S. Section 428.32 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the.:
table remnin unchanged) to read as.
follows:
Except as provided in §S 125.30.
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• S S S I
6. Section 428.42 is amended by.
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 428.42 ElfIus limitations guideline.
ue, .reaantlng the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by die application of
th. beet practicabl. control technology
oursndy available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• I S • I
7. Section 428.48 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 428.46 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process’
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
8. Section 428.52 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
§ 428.52 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beat practicable control isdinolugy
currently available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of-
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• • S S S
9. SectIon 428.56 is amended by
revising the introductorytext as follows:
4428.58 P,eUeaun.nt etendeids for new -
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process -
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403, in addition tG the
limitations set forth in paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this sebtion.
• S S S S
10. Section 428.62 is amended by -
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
§ 428.62 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable con troi technology
currently available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations repze anting the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• S S S S
ii. Section 428.68 is amended by
revising the introductory text as follows.
§ 428.60 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. in addition to the
Limitations set forth in paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section.
• S S * a
12. Section 428.72 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows: -
4428.72 Effluent lImitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beet practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in § 125 30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitatIon s -representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• S S S S
13. SectIon 428.76 is amended by
revising the introductory text as follows
4428.70 Pr Ur.ent stendartis for new
sourc
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. in addition to the
limitations set forth in paragraphs (a)
- and (b) of this section.
• S * S - S
14. Section 428.82 Is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table r eain . unchanged) to read as
foilowaz
§428. Effluentiimltationeguldelinee
. ..4uu...dsg the degree of effluent
reduction etinhiable by the application of
the beet practicable control technology
CUrvd available.
Except as provided in §412530
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
§428.28 Effluent Umitetiana guideline.
. ,.. •tlng the d.wwaf effluent
reduction attainable by the application of-
the beat nreatl iee& tedinoi0av
-------
33984 Federal Regiofer/ Vol. 60; No. 125 I Thursday, June 29. 1995 / Rules and Regulations
control technology currently available
(SPT)
• • • • •
13. Section 428.86 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table rm ein , unchanged) to read as
follows:
§‘2&86 Prwulmanl stendirds for nsw
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces pn
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 R part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties,,
controlled by this section. which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new point source
subject to the prov eons of this subpart
16. Section 428.92 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follOws:
§428.92 Effluent Ikpfl l t s g ldslI ss-
representing the da .s of effluent
reduction attainabl, by th. application of
the best practicable control technology
ctutentiy aval
Except as provided in §4125.30
through 125.32. any existing point.
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent - -
limitations representing the degree of-
effluent reduction athLin*hle by the.
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• • • • •
17. SectIon 428.96 is amended by
revising the introductory text as follows:
§428.96 Prattu.iiti...t atendirds f rnsss
5OUVCSL
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly -
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. in addition to the
limitations set forth in paragraphs (a)
and (b)ofthissactian. -
• • • • •
18. Section 428. 102 Is amended by. -.
revising the introductory text to iced as’
follows:
§428.102 Effluent limitedons guldef . 5 -...
rep..ifllng th J,,. .. o fsf8u.nt
reduction ettalnabl. by the appllGatloo at
the best practicable control technology
currentiy available.
Except as provided in §4125.30
through 125.32. any e asting point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations represenung the degree of
effluent reduction att ini.hl. by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
a a a a a
19. Section 428.106 is amended by
revising the introductory text as follows:
§428.106 PratiseDnisi seatdds far nss’
scurcse.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403, in addition to the
limitations set forth in paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section.
• a a a a
20. SectIon 428.112 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remmnt unchanged) to read as
follows:
4428.112 Effluent limitations guldellnss
r.prsawting tits degree of effluent
reduction attainabl, by th. application of
the best practicable control technology
cu. . .Iy avaIlable.
Except as provided in §4125.30
through 125.32. any existing point.
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction a ainahle by the
application of the best prw4ft ihle.
control technology currently avaikhis.
(BPT):
• a a • a
21. Section 428.116 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the..
table r vnalna nTtrhiinged ) to reed a.
follows:
4428.116 Pvetiealzn ....t 1e. ,d..nI . for new
Any new source subject to this.
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly -
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 part 403. In addition. the.
following pretreatment standard -.
establishe, the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properUee •
controlled by this section. which may.bsr
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new point. sow .
subject to the provisions of this subparti
PART 432—(AMENDEDI
In Part 432:
1. The authority citation for part 432
continues to read as follows:
Authority Sacs. 301. 304 (b) and (ci. 306
(b) and (cj. and 307(c) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended: 33 U.S.C
1251. 1311. 1314(b) and (c). 1316(b) end (ci.
1317(c): 88 SIaL 816 et seq.. Pub. L 92—500
91 Stat. 1567. Pub. L 95—217.
2. Sec’ln ” 432.12 Is by
revising the Introductory text to read
follows:
§432.12 EfIteest ILJ’- -—s guld ,
I-v— eflh.sm
r-dir1k q gWn s by thsapplc96 ..
th. best pi 1t ab r.iWul teehnelegy
aUto. .‘
ExcoptasprovldedinS4l2j.ao
through 125.32. any wasting point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree . .,
effluent reduction attainable by the.-
application of the best practicable
control technology currently avajj ,,.i
I I ’
a. a a a
3. Section 432.14 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table rainaine tuwhnnged ) to read - .i’-
follows:
4432.14 PrsL tm .t standents f,
Any existing source subject to this ., . -
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into apubIIrJy
owned treatment works must comply -
with 40 Q ’R part 403. In addltjoa ,
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality
pollutants or pollutant properties -
controlled by this section which ee
discharged toapublicly owned
treatment works by a point source .-;
subjecttothe provisionaofth1smthp
4. Section 432.16 Is revised to
follows:
§432.16 Fre4rs Vn. t 5Dnd. U.,fir
sssuvue.. . —c .
Any new sOUI subject tø thl$ L
subpart that Introduces pr-
weatewater pollutants into a publ1dyt
owned treatmant works must omp
wIth 40 (1 ’R part 402. -
5. Sectton.432 221s ain uWbp .st
revising the lntroducter tag -
follows: - ..
§432
g—etzln ssoy me
thsbsul, 1 - _ Y
cwrsntiy 5 ..Jk.ML -. .- - ‘..
Exca asp vtded ’ ln$I
through 125.32.-any
source suhj to this nabpnt
achieve the following sfll’ ”
limitations representing tie -
effluent reductiQn attalnabis by .•
application of the bast
control technology cwimidY , ‘ -
(BF 1 ’): - •
a 6. Section 432.24
revising th abovs
-------
Federal_Register / Vol. 60. No. 125 I Thursday, June 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
33965
tsbl gemains unchanged) to read as
Pretreatment etandesde for
,,g 5OUrCSs.
MY existing source subject to this
gubpaJt that introduces process
w stewater pollutants Into a publicly
treatment works must comply
with 4 O CFR part 403. addition, the
10 11 0 win8 pretreatment standard
blishes the quantity or quality of
, ,llutantS or pollutant properties
tiolled by this section which may be
charged to a publicly owned
ient works by a point source
subiect to the provisions of this subpart.
I I I I
7. Section 432.26 is revised to read as
follows:
Pretreatment standards for new
new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
3. Section 432.32 is amended by
rev1s’fl the introductory text to read as
follows: -
p432.32 Effluent limitations guidelines
iu.nthig the de os of efflu.nt
reduction attaln Is by the L.alio. . of
s beat practicable conwul ta luiolo ,
—y available,
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
rouzce subject to this subpart shall
aclueve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction atthsnllhle by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BFfl:
• I I I *
9. Section 432.34 is amendedby
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
•432.34 Pretrsatm.afl s ds for
ededeg
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In add1tio the
Following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
Controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
• I I I I
10. Section 432.36 to read
sfoIlows:
4432.36 Pvwe.una..t etandd . for •u
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR 5Zt 403.
11. Section 432.42 Is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
4432.42 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
ourrentiy available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BFfl:
• I * I I
12. SectIon 432.44 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
4432.44 Pretreatment standards for
ousting sources.
Any existing source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a point source
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
13. Section 432.46 is revised to read
as follows:
4432.46 Prevsauss..l for new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFRpart 403
14. Section 432.52 is amended 6y
revising the text above the table (the
table rem in* unchanged) to read as
follows:
4432.62 Effluent limitations guldelinus
rep.e....Ung th degree c i effluent
reduction attelnable by the applIr.1 1 04 of
th. best p,acticabl. control technology
curresidy available,
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of th. best practicable
control technology cuirently available
(BPT):
• I * * I
15. Section 432.56 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
4432.56 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
• I I I I
16. Section 432.62 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
4432.62 Effluent Imitations guidelines
• ..pruaoting the degree of effluent
reduction attalnabl. by the application of
thebeet practicable control technology
arnundy available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• I I I I
17. Section 432.66 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remninA ‘ .n hnnged ) to read as
follows:
4432.56 Pruiisatm&.1 stmidsrds for new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that Introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
wIth 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publidy owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
I I I I *
18. Section 432.72 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
-------
33966 Federal Resjster I Vol.
table rnmAins unchanged) to read as
follows:
§432.12 Effluent limitation. guidelines
re iruanthIg lit. degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable cenbol taclinology
currently available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
S S S S S
19. Section 432.78 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 432.76 Pretreatment standaids for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
20. Section 432.82 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the.
table remains .inriianged) to read as
follows
§432.es Effluent limituff ens guidelines..
repreeenthig fit, degree of effluent
reduction attainabl, by ths application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §S 125.3(1.
through 125.32. any existing poinr
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree at
effluent reduction attiiinnhla by the
application of the beet practicable
control technology currently available
(BP ’fl:
• S S S S
21. Section 432.86 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 432.86 Pretreatment stendaids tar new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process-
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
60, No. 125 1 Thursday, June 29, 1995./ Rules and ReguIafio
fdllowing pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
poliutaz’ts or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
22. Section 432.92 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§432.92 Effluent limitations guidelines
repreeenting the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
th. best practicable con Vol technology
currently available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• S S O I
23. Section 432.96 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
•
§432.96 P,ebeatIu.ul sbei ds for new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly..
owned treatment works must comply.
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the-
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
24. Section 432. 102 is amended by
removing the introductory text and
revising the text above the table (thr . c
table remains ain ’hs.nged) in paragraph
(a) to read as follows: -
§432.192 Effluent Umltatians guld.lb
.. .,rewtlng it. d . 1 . of slfluunt
reduction attainable by the applIcation ol ’
the bust practicable conbol leehnofo
currently available.
Except as provided in §fi 1Z5.1O
through 125.32. and subject to the. .
provisions of paragraph (b) of this.
section. any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
-
25. Section 432.106
revising the text above the tabJ ,
table remnii e wIS!htinged ) to
follows:
§432,105 PruSrc.UI...4
sources.
Any new source sub jeci
subpart that introduces prn . -
wastewater pollutants into a 1
owned treatment works a
with 40 CFR part 403. In
following pretreatment st
estalilishes the quantity or
pollutants or pollutant pro 1
controlled by this section w 1
discharged to a publicly owc
treatment works by a new souj
to the provisions of this subpa
PART 435—(AMENDEOJ
En part 435
a. The authority citation for
continues to read as follows:
Aldhoriiy 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314,
1317. 1318. and 1361.
2. Section 435.32 is revised
follows: . .- -
§435.32 Effluent Il inIt a t l os is guith
rsp..esntlng the degree smj
redaction attalnabl. by the.
the best practicabl. contrai - ‘ -
currently available. .
Except as provided 1n14123,3f
through 125.32. any e da*ing pet
source subject to this subpart .lai
achieve the following eMuant .. . . ,
Lim itations represennng the dW
effluent reduction attainable byi
application of the best prth’
control technology currentl- —
(BPT): there shall be no disi_
waste water pollutazits-inIa Sit. 1
waters from any source
production. field exploration,
well completion, or wall rt
produced water, drilling muds
cuttings. and produced
3. Section 435.4215 amusd
revising the text above the
table remains I .nrhang!d ) jar’
follows:.
. 5.
§485.43 Eff he lens
.. tb19the igme iid
reduction l..l styli
the best practicab cCflUCf U
currently itailable.
Except as provided in §S 1
through 125.32. any exiatull
source subject to this sr -
achieve the following efflu
- limitations representing ih. -
effluent reduction attaiiiab
application of the best prsctl
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 125 I Thursday. June 29. 1995 I Rules and Regulations
33967
ioIogy currently available
. . a
435.52 is amended by
th. introductory text:
g paragraphs (a)
text. (a)(l) and (a)(2) as
text to the section. (a) and
eIy; and revising the newly
introductory text to the
read as follows:
. gffluenl limitations guidelines
the degree of eflluent
attainable by the application of
p,acdcabli control technology
tandY SYaIta
as provided in §5125.30
• ugh 125.32. any existing point
tbSO subject to this subpart shall
Zeve the following effluent
tations representing the degree of
rnuent reduction attains hle by the
icat1on of the best practicable
trol technology currently available
p 1 &gT 436.-{AMENDEOI
n art 436:
. he authority citation for part 436
nnuus to read as follows:
Authantyl Seca. 301. 304 (b) and (C).
Feds’ i Water Pollution Control Act. aa
did (33 U.S.C. 1251. 1311. 1314 (b) and
(c ). 86 Stat. 610 seq.. Pub. I .. 92-500) (the
Art
z. Section 436.22 is amended by
ovmg the introductory text and
revising the introductory text in
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
43$fl Effluent limitations guideline.
..,...inting the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
Ii . beat practicable control technology
laTilifly available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. and subject to the
provisions of paragraphs (b) and (C) of.
this section. any existing point sours
tublect to this subpart shall achieve the
bllowing effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction anj inahle by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BFT):
• S S S S
3. Section 436.32 is amended by
removing the introductory text and
revising the introductory text in
Paragraph (a) to read as follows:
143132 Effluent limitations guldolins.
‘IC’lamntlng the degre. of effluent
IC1Ien attainable by the applkauon of
a, lest practicable control technology
Except as provided in §5125.30
thiough 125.32. and subject to the
I
provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section. any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
4. Section 436.42 is amended by
removing the introductory text and
revising the introductory text in
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
5436.42 Effluent limitetions guideline.
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the epplicadon of
the beet practicable control technology
currandy eliable.
Except as provided in §5 125.30
through 125.32. and subject to the
provisions of paragraphs (b) and (C) of
this section. any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
• S •
5. Section 436.52 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
4436.52 Effluent Itmiteticos guideline.
..,.. . .santing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application el
die beet practicable convol technology
cwvendy available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall,
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available.
(BP’fl:
• • S S S
0. Section 430.02 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
5436.62 Effluent Iimttatiu..s guideline.-
. .p...aeung the degree of effluent
reduction a nabIs by Vi. application of
the best practicabl. control technology
— av&
xcopt as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitauons representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
• S S S S
7. Section 436.72 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
5436.72 Emuent limitations guideline.
r.p..unting the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently aileble.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
S S S S S
8. Section 438.102 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 436.102 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beet . .c1kable cantiul technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125 30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT): For operations not employing
wet processes or flotation processes
there shall be no discharge of process
generated waste water pollutants into
navigable waters.
9. Section 430.112 is revised to read
as followec
§436.112 Effluent limitations guidelines
th. degree of effluent
reduction atblnebls by the application of
the best practicable control technology
Cu. . .atiy av ’i 4e .
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
sews subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT): For operations not employing
heavy media separation or flotation
processes there shall be no discharge of
process generated waste water
pollutants into navigable waters
10. Section 436.122 is amended by
removing the introductory text and
revising the text in paragraph (a) to read
as follows:
-------
33968 Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 125 I Thursday, June 29. 1995 / Rules and Regulations
§ 43&lfl Effluent limitations guideline.
representing the d.gre. at effluent
reduction attainable by thi application of
the beet practicabis conbol technology
csurenhly avallabis.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section. any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BFT):
there shall be no discharge of process
waste water pollutants into navigpble
waters.
• • a • a
11. Section 436.132 is amended by.
removing the introductory text and
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§436.132 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the beet practicable central technology
currentiy evil iabls.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section. any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BFfl:
there shall be no discharge of process
waste water pollutants into navigable
waters.
• a a a a
12. Section 436.142 is amended by
removing the introductory text and
revising paragraph (a) to read as follow.:
§436.142 Effluent limitations guidelines
repreeenting the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by application of
the best , ..J’--’ s cenitci heIrnoiogy-
currendy available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section. any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction athIIn hle by the application
of the best practicable control
lechnology currently available (BFI ’J: -
there shell be no discharge of process
waste water pollutants into navigable
waters.
• a a a a
13. Section 436.152 is amended by
removing the introductory text and
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§436.152 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best preclicabi. control technology
curreedy available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. and subject to the’
provisions of paiagraph (b) of this
section. any existing point source
sub ject to this subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
there shall be no discharge of process
waste water pollutants into navigable
waters.
a a a a a
14. Section 436.182 is amended by
removing the introductory text and
revising the introductory text in
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§436.182 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing th. degree of effluent
reduction attaInable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currentiy avellabie.
Except as provided in §5 125.10
through 125.32. and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section. any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations-. -
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
a a a S a
15. Section 435.192 is amended by -
removing the introductory text and
revising paragraph (a) to read as follower
§436.192 Effluent ilmitations guideline..
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainabie by the application of
the beet prac1i aIsI . control tedlnoiogy
cunendy available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section for operations . !IifIng anhydrite
deposits. any existing point soux
subject to this subpart shall achieve the,
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
there shall be no discharge of process
waste water pollutants into navigable
waters.
• a S U I
16. Section 436.222 is revised to read
as follows:
§A36m Effluent limitations guis
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the appIIcatj ,
lb. best d abIi ooatrol teclinelogy
Except as provided in §5 125.3Q
through 125.32, any existing poi .
source subject to this subpart shall ‘
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degreeo
effluent reduction attainable by the .
application of the best practicable .
control technology currently availabj 4
(BFI’J.. There shall be no discharge of
process generated waste water
pollutants into navigable waters. .
17. Section 436.232 is amended by-
removing the introductory text and
revising paragraph (a) to read a3foLl w
§ 436.232 Effluent limitations guidai , ,
repree.ntlng the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the appiiG. tj ,
the beet practicabl, control technology
currendy available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. and subject to the ..
provisions of paragraph (blot this
section. any existing point source ..
subject to this subpart shall achieve 1 h .
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effiu
reduction anaillAble by the apphca 1 .
of th best practicable control
technology currently available (BFI ’) ’
there shall be no discharge of prom....
generated waste water pollutants into—
navigable waters, a
§436.242 Effluent limitations guideilase
representing lb. degree of effluent
reduction atblnabls by the application at’
the best , U blo control technology —
cunsntiy a
Except as provided in §5 125.30r-
through 125.32. and subject to ths’
previsions of paragraph (b) of this
section. any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achie
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluant ..
reduction attainabl, by the app
of the boss practicable control
technology currently e -’
there shall be no discharge of proo
generated waste water pollutair
navigable waters
• a a a a
19. Section 436.252 is amended b
removing the introductory text a”
revising paragraph (a) to read as I
18. Section 436.242 is amended by-
removing the introductory text and.
revising paragraph (a) to read as folios
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 125 / Thursday. June 29. 1995 I Rules and Regulations
33969
limitations guidelines
the degree of effluent
attainabl, by the applicatIon of
,.ecllcabl. control technology
Ø
asdY
p1 as provided in §5125.30
i 2532 , and subject to the
of paragraph (b) of this
any existing point source
tothis subpart shall achieve the
¶ wUig effluent limitations
. aepung the degree of effluent
j tjon attainable by the application
. t,est practicable control
hnOIOSY currently available (BPT):
1 shal1 be no discharge of process
W geted waste water pollutants into
igable waters.
I • • • 0
20. Section 436.262 is amended by
the introductory text and
. g paragraph (a) to read as follows:
3&282 Effluent limitations guidelines
!.,i.riiiiflting the degree of effluent
attainable by the application of
nest practicable control technology
ventiy available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
uugh 125.32. and subject to the
previsions of paragraph (b) of this
on. any existing point source
to this subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations
tepreeenting the degree of effluent
mduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
there shall be no discharge of process
generated waste water pollutants into
eavigable waters.
• • S S S
21. Section 436.322 is revised to read
is follows:
43t1fl Effluent limitations guideline.
..,..thig the degree of effluent
t icties attainable by the application 0$
1* best practicable control technology -
Errapt as provided In §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
iaurca subject to this subpart shall
athieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
efiluant reduction attainable by the
iPplicatlon of the best practicable
onirol technology currently available
( SF 1 1: For operations not employing
Wet processes there shall be no
discharge of process generated waste
Witar pollutants into navigable waters.
22. SectIon 436.382 is amended by
‘ Ov1ng the introductory text and
tiWtztng the text above the table (the
ible Nmatns unchanged) in paragraph
ii ) tO read as follows:
§ 438.382 Effluent limitations guideline.
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applIcation of
the best practicable control technology
currendy available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32, and subject to the
provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section. any existing point source
subject to this subpart shall achieve the
following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application
of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
PART 443—(AMENDEOI
In part 443:
1. The authority citation for part 443
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 301. 304 (b) and (c i. 306
(b) and (ci and 307(c). Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (the Act);
33 U.S.C 1251. 1311. 1314 (bland (c i. 1316
(bi and (c). 13 17(c). 86 Stat. 816 et seq.; Pub.
L. 92—500.
2. Section 443.12 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§443.12 Effluent limitations guideline.
representing the degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currendy available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the beet practicable
control technology currently available.
(BPT):
• • a S S
3. Section 443.16 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§443.10 Pr.4r .Uvient standards for new
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
4. Section 443.22 is revised to read as
follows:
5443.32 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicabl, control technology
cunendy available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT): There shall be no discharge of
process waste water pollutants to
navigable waters.
5. Section 443.26 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 443.26 Pretreatnant standards for new
sourcee.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
6. Section 443.32 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remAing unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 443.32 Effluent limItations guideline.
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
thi best practicable control technology
currendy available.
Except as provided in §5 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attAlnAhln by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(DPI’):
S S S S
7. Section 443.36 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remxins unchanged) to read as
follows:
§443.36 standards for new
sourcee.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
-------
33970 Federal Reg stest / Vol. 60. No. 125 / Thursday. June 29. 1995 / Rules and Regulations .
—
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
8. Section 443.42 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 443.42 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by th• application of
the best practicabi. con Vol technology
narrenfly OVSllSblSh
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125 32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
. I I I
a
9. Section 443.46 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§443.48 Prstre.lm..L sVo ds for new
soureas. -
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CTh part 403.. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart
• I I I I
PART 446— [ AMENDEDI - -
In part 446:
1. The authority citation for part 446 -
continues to read as follows:
Authoflir Sec.. 301. 304 (blend ( Cl. 306
(bland (c i and 307(c), Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (the Act):
33 U.S.C 1231. 1311, 1314(b) and (c). 1316
(b) and (c) end 1317(c); 86 Stat. 618 at seq.;
Pub I .. 92-500.
2. Section 446.12 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 446.12 Effluent limitations guideline.-
representing ti. degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
cerrundy available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
[ imitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BFI’): There shall be no discharge of
process waste water pollutants to
navigable waters.
3. Section 446.16 is revised to read as
follows:
§446.16 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart: There
shall be no discharge of process water
pollutants to a publicly owned
treatment works.
PART 447—IAMENOEDI
In part 447:
1. The authority citation for part 447
continues to read as follows: -
Authorlty Sacs. 301.304(b) end (c). 308
(b) and (c i and 307(c), Federal Water..
Pollution Control Act, as amended (the Act);
33 U.S.C 1251.1311. 1314 (bland (c). 1318
(b)end (C) and 1317(c); 88 Stat, 818 0* seq.;
Pub. L. 92—500.
2. Section 447.12 is revised to read as
follows:
§447.12 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing Ut. degree of effluent -
reduction attainable by Ut. application c i-
ti. best practicable con Vol technology.
ourrentiy available.
Except as provided In §S 125.30-
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this .ubpart shell
achieve the following effluent..
limitations representing the degree oL.
effluent reduction att injihle by the
application of the best practicable-
control technology currently availahle ’
(BFT): There shall be no discharge of
process waste water pollutants t.
navigable waters.
3. Section 447.16 is revised to read as
follows:
§447.16 PreVs.ans.t standards for new
sour .
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment stjini4iird
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant pmpesj , .
controlled by this section wlij ina ”
discharged to a publicly owu .‘ ‘
treatment works bye new sou
to the provisions of this mibpa
shall be no discharge of process
pollutants toe publicly OWne
treatment works. -
.. ..
PART 454 —(AMENDEDJ
In part 1154:
1. The authority citation for 43g
continues to read as follows: -
Autbonty Sec.. 301. 304 (hI and (c)
306(b), 307 (b) and ( Cl. Federal W . -
Pollution Control Act, as ainendal (33
1251. 1311. 1314(b) and (C). 1316(b)ta
1317(b) and(c) 88 Stat. 816 c i seq.: P 1bh(ll ;t!i
92—500) (the Act).
2. Section 454.12 is amended by
revising the introductory text to
follows:
§ 454.12 Effluent limitations guldeibi - -
. .tIng the degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by Ut.
the best practicable control tscIuio1
cunsndy available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32. any mUSting point
source subject to this subpart shall - —.
achieve the following effluent ‘
limitations representing the d
effluent reduction attainable by the..:
application of the best practicable
control technology currently avaj
(BPT):
• •“. I I I
3. Section 454.22 is amended by
revising the Introductory teat to r..._
follows:
§ 454.22 Effluent limitations guidabe.
representing the degre, of effluent
reduction attainable by the a
Ut. best practicable control t.chnaiau j
— aved e. -
Except as provided in §5 125.3U
through 125.32, any existing pernt . ;
source subject to this subpart sheila
achieve the following effluent •‘
limitations repzesentiw’ - -
effluent reduction
. appllraiizin of the best prac
control technology currently avsi1a
(BFfl: -
• a a a a
4. Section 434.32 Is amended b
revising the introductory text to ‘ S I
follows;.
§45&32 Effluent limitation. guidabOl
representing the degre. of effluent-’ -
reduction attainable by Uts
the beet practicable control tech l1i (i
currentiy available.
Except as provided in § i25.3
through 125.32. any existing poI5*
source subject to this subpart she
-------
Fed.eral Register / Vat. 60, No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
33971
, Uowing effluent
• 5 tgdW1l representing the degree of
attainable by the
joi1 of the best practicable
j 5 c]uiology currently available
tion 454.42 is amended by
the introductory text to read as
ØoW
42 EffIUlflt limitations guidelines
ting the degre. of effluent
tainable by the application of
1 ’ t practicable control technology
• ‘lable.
pt as provided in § 125.30
125.32, any existing point
: ,ce subject to this subpart shall
eV 5 the following effluent
1 nons representing the degree of
giuent reduction attainable by the
of the best practicable
uol technology currently available
a * • •
5. SectIon 454.52 is amended by
yising the introductory text to read as
- f 0 jlowE
46452 Emuent limitations guidelines
the degree of effluent
1 educdefl attainable by the application of
best p cable confrol teclmology
Except as provided in §S 125.30
through 125.32, any wasting point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
rontrol technology currently available
Ffl:
• a a • •
- 8. Section 454.62 is amended by -
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
454.I2 Effluent limitation. guidelines
iepre..nting the degree of effluent
ratuction attainable by the applIcation of f
lie beet practicable cannel technology
aeTunOy avababi
Except as proy-ided in §5125.30
through 125.32, any wasting point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
Control technology currently available
a • • • a
PART 455....(AMENDEDJ
In Part 455:
1. The authority citation for part 455
COntinues to read as follows:
AuthcntT Secs. 301. 304. 300, 307, and
501. Pub. L 92-500.88 Stat. 8 16. Pub. 1.95-
217.91 Stat. 158. and Pub. L 100-4(33
U.S.C 1311. 1314. 1316. 1317. and 1361).
2. SectIon 455.22 is amended by
revising the text above the table (the
table remains unchanged) to read as
follows:
§ 455.32 Effluent limitations guidelInes
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent
timitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT). The following limitations
establish the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph which may
be discharged from the manufacture of
organic act ye ingredient:
3. Section 455.32 is revised to read as
follows:
455.32 Effluent limitation. guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology-
currently avallable
Except as provided in §5125.30 —..
through 125.32. any existing point’
source subject to this subpart. shall
achieve the following effluent
Limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available.
(BFF). The following limitations
establish the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph which may
be discharged from the manufacture of..
metallo-organic active izigredienti There
shall be no discharge of process waste’
water pollutants to navigable watere.
4. Section 455.42 is revised to read. as
follows:
455.42 Effluent limitations guldelbiss
•p aanting the degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by the applIcation of
the best practlcabi. control technology
currently avaflable.
Except as provided in 55125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subiect to this subpart, shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT). The following Limitations
establish the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph which may
be disrhargod from the formulation and
pni kag ng of pesticides: There shall be
no discharge of process waste water
pollutants to navigable waters.
PART 457—EAMENDEDI
In Part 457:
1. The authority citation for part 457
continues to read as follows:
Authority-.: Sacs. 301. 304 (b) and (C).
306(b). 307 (b)and (C). Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S C
1251, 1311. 1314 (b) and (ci. 1316(b) and
1317 (bland (C). 86 Stat. 818 et seq.. Pub. L
92—500)(the Act).
2. Section 457.12 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
§ 457.12 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainabl, by the application of
the beet practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided an §5125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart. shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT):
a a a a a
3. Section 457.32 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
§ 457.32 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degre. of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of
t11 best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in §5 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart. shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
efflueht reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT): -
* a a a a
PART 458—(AMENDEDJ
In Part 458;
1. The authority citation for part 458
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sacs. 301. 304(b) and (ci. 306U
307 (bi and (c). Federal Water Pollution
ontroI Act. aaaznanded (33 USC 1251
1311. 13 14(b) and (C), i316(b) and i3l Ib)
and (c). 86 Stat. 816 at seq.. Pub L 92—
500)(ths Act).
2. Section 458.10 is revised to read as
follows:
-------
33972 Federal Register I VoL 60. No. 125 / Thursday, June 29, 1995 / Rules and Regulatloits..—
4458.16 Pistruilesisit s nd s for new 5. Section 458.32 is revised to read as process waste water poUw
UOUtCI*. follows: navigable waters.
8. SectIon 458.4611 rev1
follows:
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publidy
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
Pollutant or pollutant property-Oil
and grease.
Pretreatment standard-lOOmg/liter.
3. SectIon 458.22 is revised to read as
follows:
4 458fl Effluent IlmiteSons guidelines
repressndng the degree of effluent
reducden attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currendy available.
Except as provided in § 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart. shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT): There shall be no discharge of
process waste water pollutants into
navigable waters.
4. Section 458.28 is revised to read as
follows:
4458.26 Prslreathi.ffl mandelds for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 GR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be.
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject
to the provisions of this subpart:
Pollutant or pollutant property-Oil
and grease.
Pretreatment standard-lOOmg/litor.
4458.32 Effluent limitations guidelines
rep 1 .os. 1 Ung the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application 01
the best practicable ti l technology
aarrentiy available.
Except as provided in if 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart. shall
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT): There shall be no discharge of
process waste water pollutants into
navigable waters.
B. Section 458.36 is revised to read as
follows:
4458.31 PrsV.Unmit s idds for new
sources.
Any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403. In addition, the
following pretreatment standard
establishes the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties
controlled by this section which may be
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works by a new source subject.
to the provisions of this subpart
Pollutant or pollutant property-Oil’
and grease.
Pretreatment standard- loomgfliter.
7. Section 458.42 is revised to read as
follows:
§458.42 Effluent limitations guideline.
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applh.aUwI of
the best practicable cenoni technology
cun’sndy available.
Except as provided in if 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart, shall’
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degre, of
effluent reduction attnin hle by th.
application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT): There shall be no discharge of
§458.46 P..U...Uh. ,.l -
Any new source subject to t
subpart that introduces p!nr .
wastewater pollutants into a
owned treatment works ii
with 40 R part 403. Ini
following pretreatment at
establishes the quantity or
pollutants or pollutant pro 1
controlled by this section w 1
discharged to a publicly own%
treatment works by a new
to the provisions of this stibpa
Pollutant or pollutant 1
and grease.
Pretreatment standard- l0omgiij
PART 460—jAMENDEDJ
InPart460:
1. The authority citation
read as follows. -
4.
Author1ty Sacs. 301. 304(b) md (c i. -
300(b), 307 (b) end (ci. Fedemi We .
Pollution Control Act. as amended (33 lJ.3 . ..
1251. 1311. 1314 (b) and (ci. 1316(b).
1317 (hI and (c). 88 Stat. 810 at : Pth
92—soogihe Act).
2. SectIon 400.12 Is amended by
revising the introductory text to
follows:
4410.12 Effluent lhnl ens ______
representing the usgru of effluent ‘:.
reduction attainable by th.
ths best Wacti e control tachnein
currentiy available.
Except as provided in §4 1253r
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart. shalL
achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree c1
effluent reduction attainable by the.
application of the best practicable j
control technology currently eviitml ’ 1 1
(BFr):
. S S S
(FR Doc. 91—15027 Piled 0—28-43; 8:4S.
case — w-
-------
25718
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 92 / Friday, May 12. 1995 I Notices
Comprehensive Solid Waste
Management Program.
Implementation. City of DuPont.
Pierce and Thurston Counties. WA.
Duo: June 12. 1995. Contact: Timothy
P. Julius (703) 696—8078.
EIS No. 950182. Draft EIS. NOA. FL.
Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary Comprehensive
Management Plan. [ implementation.
Special-Use-Permit. Monroe County.
FL. Due: December 31. 1995. Contact:
Billy Causey (305) 743—2437.
LIS No. 950183. Draft EIS. SFW. CA.
Multiple Species Conservation
Program Planning Area. Issuance of a
Permit to Allow Incidental Take of
Threatened and Endangered Species.
San Diego. County. CA. Due: June 26.
1995. Contact: Laura Hill (503) 231—
6241.
EIS No. 950184, Draft LIS. DOE.
Programmatic ElS—Urantuin Mill
Tailings Remedial Action Ground
Water Project. [ implementation. Clean
up of 24 Mill Sites. Due: June 26.
1995. Contact: Rich Sena (505) 845—
6307
EIS No. 950185, Draft EIS. DOE. NM.
Dual Axis Radiographic
Hydrodynamic Test (DARI-IT)
Facility. Construction and Operation.
Approval of Operating Permit. Los
Alanios National Laboratory (LANL).
Los Aiamos and Santa Fe Counties,
NM. Due: June 26. 1995. Contact:
Diane Webb (505) 665—6353.
EIS No. 950188. Draft EIS, AFS, Gypsy
Moth Management in the United
States: A Cooperative Approach.
Implementation. US. Due: June 26.
1995. Contact: Charles Bare (301)
734—8247.
EIS No. 950187. Draft EIS. USN. FL.
Naval Training Center Orlando
Disposal and Reuse. Implementation.
Orange County. FL Due: June 26.
1995. Contact: Ronnie Laftimore (803)
743—0888.
EIS No. 950188, Draft EIS. USN. CA.
San Diego Homeporting Facilities
Construction and Operation to
Support Berthing One NIMITZ Class
Aircraft Carrier, Implementation. San
Diego County. CA. Due: June 26. 1995.
Contact: Robert Hexton (619) 532—
3824.
Amended Notices
EIS No. 910277, Draft EIS, AFS. OR,
White King and Lucky Lass Uranium
Mine Cleanup and Rehabilitation.
Section 404. NPDES Permit and
Special [ is a Permit. Licenses
Approval. Fremont National Forest.
Lakeview Ranger District. Lake
County. OR. Due: November 07, 1991.
Contact: Felix R. Miera Jr. (503) 947—
3334.
Published FR 08—23—91-—Officially
Canceled by Preparing Agency.
E!S No. 950040. Draft ErS. AFS, CA.
California Spotted Owl Habitat
Management Plan. Implementation.
Sierra Nevada National Forests. CA.
Due: July 10, 1995, Contact: Janice
Gauthier (916) 979—2020.
Published FR: 2—3—95—Review period
extended.
EIS No. 950068. Draft EIS. BLM, CA.
NV, Alturas 345 Kilovolt (Ky) Electric
Power Transmission Line Project.
Construction. Operation and
Maintenance. Right-of-Way Grant
Approval. Special-Use-Permit and
COE Section 404 Permit. Susanville
District. Modoc. Lassen and Sierra
Counties. CA and Washoe County.
NV, Due: June 02. 1995. Contact: Peter
Humm (916) 257—0456.
Published FR 03—10—95—Review period
extended.
EIS No. 950073. Draft EIS. BLM. AZ.
Grand Canyon National Park General
Management Plan, Implementation.
Coconino and Mohave Counties. AZ.
Due: May 11. 1995. Contact: Larry L.
Noms (303) 969—2267
Published FR 03—10—95—Review period
extended.
EIS No. 950106. Draft EIS. NPS. WA.
Mountain Goat Management Within
Olympic National Park.
Implementation. Clallan. Grays
Harbor. Jefferson and Mason Counties,
WA. Due: July 17. 1995. Contact: Paul
Crawford (360) 452—4501.
Published FR—o3—31—95 Review period
extended.
EIS No. 950167. Draft Supplement.
DOE. WA. Puget Power Northwest
Washington Electric Transnussion
Project. Updated Information,
Construction and Operation. Whatcon
and Skagit Counties. WA. Due: June
19. 1995. Contact: Ken Banihart (503)
230—3667. -
Published FR—05—05—95 Due Date
Correction.
Dated: May 9. 1995.
William I). Dickerson.
Director. NEAl Compliance Division. Office
of Federal Activities.
(FR Doc. 95—11795 Filed 5-11-95:8:45 ami
ea am coos -- ‘
(FRL -62 06-6 l
Water Pollution Control; Approval of
Application by the State of Florida to
Administer the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPOES) Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Approval of application.
SUMMARY: On May. 1. 1995. the Regional
Administrator for the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Region IV.
approved the application by the State of
Florida to administer the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program for regulating point
source discharges of pollutants into
surface waters within the State. The
State NPDES program, as authorized. is
a phased NPDES program encompassing
permitting for: (1) domestic discharges;
(2) industrial discharges. including
those which also have storm water
discharges; and (3) the pretreatment
program for Publicly Owned Treatment
Works. Storm water discharges from
municipal separate storm sewer systems
(MS4 s), individual storm water-only
discharges. storm water general permits.
and Federal facility discharges are to be
phased in by the year 2000. Further, the
State of Florida is not being authorized
to administer a sewage sludge
management program.
EFFECTiVE DATE: May 1. 1995.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms
Dee Stewart, Environmental Engineer.
Permits Section. U.S. EPA Region [ V.
345 Courtland Street. NE. Atlanta.
Georgia. 30365. 404/347—3012. ext.
2928. The administrative record (which
comprises approximately 1650 pages)
can be obtained from the,Florida
Department of Environmental Protection
(FOEP) office in Tallahassee. Florida or
the EPA office in Atlanta. Georgia at a
minimal cost per page.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Governor of Florida requested NPDES
program approval on November 21.
1994. by submitting a complete program
application. Several modifications were
made to the application based on public
comments and discussions between the
EPA and FDEP. and as allowed by
Federal regulations. These
modifications include the clarification
of Section IILC. and additions of
Attachments A, B. and C. to the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOM.
Attachment A, represents permits under
active Federal enforcement at the time
of authorization which EPA will
complete the enforcement action but
FDEP will assume permitting.
compliance, and future enforcement
authority for. Attachment B represents
permits for which an evidentiary
hearing has been requested at the time
of program authorization and EPA will
retain full jurisdiction until the matter
is resolved. Attachment C represents
certain facilities as agreed upon by
FDEP and EPA where EPA will retain
full iunscliction of these NPDES permits
following authorization. Section
IV.C.1.a of the MOA was changed to
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 92 I Friday, May 12. 1995 I Notices
25719
allow for EPA review of all discharges
which may affect the waters of another
state or Indian Lands. The final changes.
including the signing of the MOA by the
Regional Administrator for EPA, Region
IV and the Secretary for FDEP. were
completed on May 1, 1995.
Florida’s application was described in
the Federal Register on January 27.
1995. at 60 FR 5390 and in notices
published in: The Orlando Sentinel.
Pensacola News-Journal. Tallahassee
Democrat, News-Press. The Tampa
Tribune. The Palm Beach Post. Key
West Citizen. The Florida Times-Union,
and The Miami Herald, on that same
date. Copies of Florida’s application
were available for review at the EPA
Region IV office and at any FDEP office.
copying was also available at a minimal
cost per page.
As part of the public comment
process. EPA conducted four public
hearings on Florida’s application. The
hearings occurred on March 7. 1995, in
Orlando. Florida. and on March 9, 1995.
in Tallahassee. Florida. at 10:00 a.m and
7 00 p.m. on each day. EPA accepted
written comments from the public until
March 13. 1995. All comments or
objections presented at the public
heanngs or received in writing by EPA
Region IV by March 13. 1995. were
considered by EPA.
Comments were received regarding
the following issues: (1) The language in
Section N.E. ofthe MOA representing
endangered species. (2) The language in
Section IV.B. of the MOA representing
procedures and policies by which draft
and proposed permits will be reviewed.
(3) Concern regarding Florida’s ability to
administer the NPDES program. (4)
Concern with FDEP and the South
Florida Water Management District
regarding its water quality obligations as
provided in the Federal Everglades Case
Settlement. (5) Concern with the Florida
Everglades Forever Act. (6) Concern
with Florida’s implementation and
enforcement of its Minimum Water
Flows and Level Law, (7) Concern
regarding the possible degradation of
the Central Everglades following state
program approval, (8) Concern that the
United States (including the
Environmental Protection Agency) owes
the Miccosuke. Trib, of Indians of
Florida a trust responsibility to protect
tribal land and resources might
be violated by delegation of the Florida
NPDES program. (9) Concern that
NPDES authorization should be held in
abeyance until existing and future
NPDES challenges pertaining to the
Everglades Storm Water Treatment
Areas are settled. (10) Concern that
discharges beyond the terntorial seas
(Federal waters) will continue to be
permitted by EPA. and (11) Comments
regarding overall benefits resulting from
authorization. EPA’s response to all
comments are contained in this notice.
The comments and hearing record are
contained In the administrative record
supporting this notice.
I. Comment Concerning the Language in
Section IV.E. of the MOA Representing
Endangered Species
Informal consultation was initiated
under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) during a meeting
scheduled between the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS). FDEP, and EPA
on June 16, 1994. This consultation was
opened to utilize the expertise of the
NMFS and FWS to evaluate EPA’s
assessment of potential effects on
Federally listed species and critical
habitat in the State of Florida. Since
NMFS was unable to attend, a letter
dated June 23. 1994. was sent to the
NMFS reaffirming the initiation of
informal consultation with NMFS.
A mechanism to address possible
adverse impacts to Federally listed
species and their habitats associated
with state-issued NPDES permits was
developed through discussions with
FDEP. NMFS. FWS, and EPA. The
measures and provision agreed upon are
represeqted in Section N.E. of the
MOA. In letters, both dated December
18. 1994, EPA requested concurrence
from NMFS and FWS with EPA’s
determination that the authorization of
the FDEP NPDES permit program is
‘not likely to adversely affect” listed
species or their critical habitat, pursuant
to 50 CFR 402.13. FWS concurred with
this determination on December 21,
1994. and NMFS concurred with this
determination on January 18, 1995.
On December 15. 1994. EPA requested
concurrence from the Florida Bureau of
Historic Preservation with EPA’s
determination that NPDES program
approval for FDEP will have no effect on
the preservation of historic properties
within the State of Florida with respect
to the National Historic Preservation
Act. Florida’s Bureau of Historic
Preservation concurred with EPA’s
determination in a letter dated March 3,
1995.
A. Comments
Two organizations provided specific
comments suggesting clarification that
all ESA issues resulting in an EPA
objection be limited to impacts
associated to the permitted discharge.
Their comments pertained to Section
IV E. of the MOA and the concern that
it could provide a framework by which
a Section 7 review of a draft permit
being reviewed by EPA would focus
upon the permit issuance or other
aspects of the permit process that are
unrelated to the discharge allowed
under the permit
B. EPA’S Response
Section 7 of the ESA requires
interagency cooperation between the
Services and all Federal agencies.
Section 7(allh ) requires all agencies to
review and utilize their programs in
furtherance of the purposes of the ESA.
Section 7(a)(2) requires each Federal
agency, in consultation with and with
the assistance of the Services, to insure
that any action is not likely to
jeopardize an endangered species or
adversely affect critical habitat. The
Federal action which underwent
Section 7(a)(2) consultation with the
Services was EPA’s approval of
Florida’s administration of the NPDES
program.
Section IV E. of the MOA was an
important factor in developing EPA’s
approval of the State NPDES program.
Because issuance of a state NPDES
permit and EPA’s review of a proposed
state permit does not trigger Section 7
of the ESA. the MOA calls for close
coordination between EPA. the State.
and the Services to ensure that the state-
issued permits are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existi nce of
Federally listed species. Since the
Services are natural resource agencies
with several areas of responsibilities
and maintain the right to comment on
any issue, as does the public, the MOA
should not attempt to limit the scope of
the Services’ review of a draft state
NPDES permit. The authority provided
by the CWA. on the other hand, only
allows the State and EPA to ensure that
the permitted discharge will comply
with applicable CWA requirements,
including compliance with state water
quality standards. EPA is moreover only
authorized to object to a state permit
that is outside the guidelines and
requirements of the CWA (402(d)).
EPA’s review therefore.will focus on
impacts on the discharge subject to
CWA requirements. EPA believes that
the MOA between the State of Florida
and EPA adequately and appropriately
addresses ESA concerns.
IL The Language in Section IV.L of the
MOA Representing Procedures and
Policies by Which Draft and Proposed
Permits Will Be Reviewed
A. Comments
One organization provided comments
requesting that Section [ V.8. of the
MOA be changed to require that the
basis of EPA’s objections be provided to
-------
25720
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 92 / Friday. May 12. 1995 I Notices
the permit applicant when EPA makes
an objection to a proposed permit. and
FDEP denies the permit or issues the
permit in accordance with the EPA
objections.
B. EPA ‘.s Response
EPA does not believe that additional
notification in the MOA is necessary.
Florida Administrative Code (FAC]
Section 620.510(181(b) (November 29.
1994) requires that if EPA objects in
accordance with 40 CFR 123.44 to the
issuance of an NPDES permit. FOEP..
shall address EPA’s objections in the
issuance or denial of the NPDES permit.
In accordance with the FAC. FOEP will
advise the applicant of the basis for thw
EPA objections and EPA believes that
additional language for the MOA is not
necessary. In addition. EPA is required
by 40 CFR 123.44(a)(l) to send a copy
of any comment. objection or
recommendation on any draft NPDES
permit to the permit applicant.
Ill. Concern Regarding Florida’s Ability
to Administer the NPDES Program
A. Comments
Three commentors contend that
Florida is unqualified to administer the
NPDES program for regulating
discharges of pollutants into water of
the U.S. The commentors stated that
FDEP was unable to maintain an un-
biased position and an objective
appearance while collecting and
evaluating information required for an
NPDES permit. especially with respect
to FDEP’s Northeast District Office. One
commentor expressed concern that
Florida does not utilize a centralized
wastewater permitting system and
stated that delegation to local
government agencies within the state
would be in violation of the Clean Water
Act (CWA).
B. Response
EPA disagrees. EPA is not in the
practice of speculating on future
program implementation. EPA reviewed
the State program submission and found
it complete and sufficient under Federal
law. On November 21. 1994, the State of
Florida submitted its formal State
Program Submission requesting EPA
approval for authorization to administer
the NPDES program under Sections
402(b) and 3 04(i) of the CWA. The
submittal included a complete program
description (including funding,
personnel requirements and
organization, and enforcement
procedures). an Independent Counsel’s
Statement, copies of applicable State
statutes and regulations. and a MOA to
be executed by the EPA. Region IV,
Regional Administrator and the FDEP
Secretary. On December 28, 1994. EPA
informed the State of Florida that EPA
had reviewed the submittal and found it
“complete” under the requirements of
40 CFR Part 123. Modifications to this
package. based on discussions between
EPA and FDEP, were submitted to EPA
in a letter, with attachments, dated
February 2. 1995. EPA reviewed the
program submittal and modifications
and determined that-it meets the
requirements of Section 402(b) of the
CWA and Federal regulations, which
include, among other things, authority
to issue permits which comply with the
CWA. authority to impose civil and
criminal penalties for permit violations,
and authority to ensure the public is
given notice and opportunity for a
hearing on each proposed NPDES
permit issuance. Finally. EPA examined
all public comments and considered the
overall advantages and disadvantages of
authorizing NPDES program
administration by the State of Florida.
The State program MOA as approved.
also provides ample opportunity for
continuing Federal oversight of the State
program. EPA may review, in
accordance with Section IV.C of the
MOA. certain draft permits. sufficiency
of permit applications, permit revisions.
revocations. and reissuances for (a)
Discharges which may affect the waters
of another state or Indian Tribe. (b)
discharges proposed to be regulated by
general permits. (C) discharges from
Publicly Owned Treatment Works.with
a permitted daily average discharge of at
least 1.0 million gallons per day. (dl
discharges from any major facility or
facilities within any of the industrial
categories listed in Appendix A to 40
CFR Part 122. (e) discharges from
sources other than a. through d. with an
average discharge exceeding 0.5 million
gallons per day. and (I) discharges from
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
required to have a pretreatment
program. In accordance with the MOA.
EPA has the right to request review, at
any time, on any other NPDES permit.
The EPA permit review process is
outlined in the MOA. On the date the
draft permit is sent to the applicant.
FDEP will send EPA Region IV one copy
of the public notice, draft permit.
application, and the fact sheet or
statement of basis associated with the
draft permit. When applicable, the
submittal will be accompanied by a new
source/new discharger determination. If
the initial permit information supplied
by FDEP is inadequate to determine
whether the draft permit meets the
guidelines and requirements of the
CWA. EPA may. in accordance with 40
CFR 123.44(d )(2) request additional
information. If EPA determines the draft
permit is insufficient, EPA shall have 90
days from the date the draft permit is
sent to EPA to supply specific grounds
for objection, and the terms and
conditions which should be included in
the permit. These written objections
must be based upon one or more of the.
criteria identified in 40 CFR 123.44(c).
Following expiration of the period for
public comment for the draft permit.
FUEP will prepare a proposed permit. If
the proposed permit is the same as the
draft permit defined in the public
notice. EPA has not objected to SUCh
draft permit. and valid and significant
public comments have not been made.
FDEP may assume EPA has waived their
review of the proposed permit and issue
the permit without further review by
EPA. In all other cases, FDEP will send
EPA one copy of the proposed permit.
recommendations of any other affected
State. and copies of written comments
and hearing records, including the
response to comments prepared under
40 CFR 124.17 to EPA for review If E .P. .
objects to the proposed permit. in
accordance with 40 CFR 123.44. FDEP
will deny the proposed permit or will
issue a permit in accordance with EPA
objections and will mail a copy of the
final permit to EPA. This review process
will ensure that FDEP is operating an
authorized NPDES program in
accordance with the requirements of the
CWA.
In response to the commentors other
concern, as the State Program is
approved, there will be no
subdelegation of permitting authority
outside of’the FDEP. Although in 1987.
the GVA was amended to allow for
NPDES program authorization to more
than one state agency, the state program
request must demonstrate equivalent
scope and stringency to the CWA and
the agency(ies) seeking program
approval must have statewide
jurisdiction over the class or categories
of discharges it seeks to regulate. As is
provided in the MOA. the FDEP will be
the State Agency implementing the
NPDES permitting program and EPA
concurs with the management of the
NPDES program in this manner. The
State is not authorized to delegate any
authority to any local agency.
IV. Concern with FDEP and the South
Florida Water Management District and
Its Water Quality Obligations as
Provided in the Federal Everglades
Case Sefflement
Comment
One commentor contended that the
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection and the South Florida tVate”
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 92 / Friday, May 12. 1995 I Notices
25721
Management District have violated and
continua to violate their water quality
obligations in the Federal Everglades
Case Settlement [ United States of
America vs. South Florida Water
. 1anagement District et a!.. 847 F.Supp.
1567 (S.D. Fla. 1992)1. The commentor
asserted that the proposed changes to
the settlement attest those violations.
Response
EPA reviewed the program submittal
and modifications and determined that
it meets the requirements of Section
402(b) of the CWA and Federal
regulations. (See response to Comment
LI I. above.) The Federal Everglades Case
Settlement is not relevant to EPAs
determuiation.
V. Concern With the Florida Everglades
Forever Act
Comment
One commentor contended that
Chapter 373.4592 (Supp. 1994), Florida
Statutes, also known as the Everglades
Forever Act of 1994 (EFA). violates the
ederal Everglades Case Settlement and
the CWA. and that Florida is failing to
enforce water quality standards as a
result of the passage of the EPA. The
cornasentor contended that its testimony
to the Florida Legislature, a summary
.iuthored by the U.S. Department of
Interior, and other documented
statements, outline the deficiencies of
ihe EPA. The cornmentor further
claimed that the refusal by FDEP to
allow the Florida Environmental
Regulation Commission (ERCI to
eonsider its petition for a numeric
phosphorus standard, and statements by
FDEP in appellate court act as
tidmissions of weakening water quality
standards and estops the State of Florida
from claiming otherwise. In addition.
the commentor stated that FDEP did not
properly submit the EPA for EPA
review, that FDEP has failed to respond
0 EPA’s questions about the law, and
that the authorization of the NPDES
I rogram should not be decided while
&Fu ation against EPA is pending
ncerning the necessity of EPA
ipproval of the EPA under the CWA.
“ pOnse
Th 15 issue is not relevant to EPA’s
‘ t ’’Crmination of completeness or
LIIi cIency of the State NPDES Program
‘ahmiss 10 fl EPA has made a
the Floridas NPDES
Ffl. ram submission and modifications
“ I the requirements of Section 402(b)
1 1 )4( 1) of the CWA. The passage of
LF,\ was a State action, and the
V.1tI0 concerning the necessity of
‘ pprov j of the EFA is not relevant
to EPA’s determination concerning
NPDES program authorization. It must
be noted that the EPA was submitted by
the State to EPA on October 1, 1994.
Based upon review of the entire statute,
EPA does not consider the EPA to be a
reviaon of existing water quality
standards, or to change existing
designated uses. FDEP and EPA are in
agreement that the EFA is not a change
to water quality standards but instead
provides a compliance schedule for
bringing existing sources of pollution
into compliance with State water
quality standards.
VI. Concern With Florida’s
Implementation and Enforcement of Its
Minimum Water Flows and Level Law
Comment
One commentor asserted that FDEP
and the South Florida Water
Management District have failed to
implement and enforce the State’s...
minimum water flows and levels law for
more than two decades and is thus
unqualified to administer the NPDES
Program.
Response
EPA has made a determination the
Florida’s NPDES program submission
and modifications meet the
requirements of Section 402(b) and
304(1) of the CWA. As part of this
determination. EPA reviewed FDEP’s
resources and believes that FDEP has
adequate resources to administer the
NPDES program. Chapter 373.042..-
Florida Statutes. Minimum Water Flows
and Levels, is a state law which is not
relevant to the NPDES regulations in
Section 402 of the CWA or EPA’s
determination because it deals with a
quantity and not a water quality issue.
In addition, if necessary, EPA retains
‘federal oversight authority, as discussed
above.
VII. Concern Regarding Potential
Degradation of the Central Everglades
Following State Program Approval
Comment
One commentor claimed that the State
of Florida has improperly allowed
continued degradation and pollution of
the central Everglades. which indude
Water Conservation Area (WCA) 3-A
and the lands of Miccosukee Tribe of
Indians of Florida. The corn mentor
further asserted that the lack of
enforcement on the part of the State has
irreparably harmed and degraded the
Everglades and allowed phosphorus’
laden discharges into the Everglades
and other state water bodies in excess of
two hundred (200) parts per billion.
Response
EPA has made a determination the
Florida’s NPDES program submission
and modifications meet the
requirements of SectIon 402(b) and
304(i) of the CWA. The issue to which
the commentor refers is being addressed
by the Federal Everglades Case
Settlement IUn,ted States of America vs.
South Florida Water Management
District eta!.. 847 F.Supp. 1567 (S.D.
Fla. 1992)). That case and the issues
associated with it are not relevant to
EPA’s decision on authorization of
Florida’s application for the NPDES
program.
VIII. Comment Stating that the United
States (Including the Environmental
Protection Agency) Owes the
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida
(Miccosukee Tribe) a Trust
Responsibility to Protect Tribal Land
and Resources Which Might be Violated
by Delegation of the Florida NPDES
Program
Comment
One comrnentor contended that the
United States (including the EPA) owes
the Miccosukee Tribe a trust
responsibility to protect tribal land and
resources, and that said trust
responsibility would be violated by the
delegation of the State of Flonda’s
NPIDES program.
Response
As a Federal agency, EPA recognizes
the Federal trust responsibility to the
Miccosukee Tribe and other Indian
Tribes. However, EPA believes that the
authorization to the State of Florida to
administer the NPDES program will not
violate that trust responsibility.
EPA must reiterate that, at this time,
it retains full jurisdiction to administer
the NPDES program on the Miccosukee
Tribe’s Reservation. Until the
Miccosukee Tribe seeks program
authorization, all permit application
and related issues concerning
discharges on the Miccosukee
Reservation must be directed to EPA
Region IV. Further, as noted above, EPA
retains the authority to ensure
compliance with water quality
standards, including any water quality
standard set by and approved by EPA by
one Miccosukee Tribe. In addition, the
Miccosukee Tribe may petition for water
quality standards and Section 401
certification authority or NPDES
program authority under Sections 303,
402. 405 and 518 of the CWA.
Finally, as noted in Comment III
above, EPA does not “delegate” a state
permitting program. Rather, EPA
authorizes the state to implement the
-------
25722
Federal_Register / Vol. 60. No. 92 / Friday, May 12. 1995 / Notices
permitting program. as provided for
under the CWA and 40 C.F.R. Part 123.
while retaining program oversight
authority for permitting and
enforcement activities. Should the State
of Florida fail to implement its NPDES
program in accordance with the CWA.
EPA has the authority to rescind
authorization.
IX. Comment that NPDES Authorization
Should be Held in Abeyance Until
Existing and Future NPDES Challenges
Pertaining to the Everglades Storm
Water Treatment Areas are Settled
Comment
One commentor asserted that the
State of Florida’s application for
authorization to administer the NPDES
program should be denied or held in
abeyance until the existing and future
NPDES permit challenges pertaining to
the Everglades Storm Water Treatment
Areas (STAs) are settled.
Response
EPA disagrees. This comment is not
relevant to EPAs decision on
authorization of Florida’s application
for the NPDES program. The NPDES
permit for the Everglades Nutrient
Removal (ENR) Project (NPDES No.
FL0043885). referenced in Comment IX
above, is one of several permits
currently being challenged through the
evidentiary hearing process (40 R
Part 124). Section IILC.3. of the MOA
states that, for permits for which an
evidentiary hearing has been requested
at the time of program authorization,
EPA will retain full jurisdiction until
resolution of the administrative
challenge or expiration of the permit.
These permits are listed in Attachment
B to the MOA. In addition, in
accordance with Section LU.C.4. and
listed on Attachment C to the MOA.
which represents certain facilities as
agreed upon by FDEP and EPA where
EPA will retain full jurisdiction to issue
these NPDES permits following
authorization, EPA and FDEP have
agreed that EPA will retain full
jurisdiction for the ENR Project (NPDES
No. FL0043885). until such time that
FDEP and the permittee am notified by
EPA that full jurisdiction has been
transferred to FDEP. FDEP shall retain
its rights tinder Section 401 of the CWA
to consider certification to any NPDES
permit issued by EPA. Any NPDES
“permit issued to any STA must meet
state water quality standards and all
applicable Federal regulations.
Therefore, EPA believes that the
argument presented above by the
commentor is not relevant to EPA’s
determination.
X. Concern that Discharges Beyond the
Territorial Seas (Federal Waters) Will
Continue to be Permitted by EPA
A. Comments
One commentor suggested that EPA
specifically state in the MOA that
dischargers to waters beyond the
territorial seas (Federal waters) will not
be included in the State of Florida’s
NPDES program authorization.
B. Response
EPA, as listed in Attachment C of the
MOA (which represents certain facilities
as agreed upon by FDEP and EPA where
EPA will retain full jurisdiction to issue
these NPDES permits following
authorization), will contain all facilities
which discharge into waters outside the
jurisdiction of the State (i.e.. beyond the
temtorial sea (Federal waters)).
XI. Comments Regarding Overall
Benefits Resulting from Authorization
A. Comments
EPA received comments from three
organizations supporting the delegation
of NPDES authority to Florida. These
comments clearly indicated support for
delegation because:
1. It would result in the consolidation
of wastewater permitting into one
permitting agency.
2. Provide cost benefits to those who
pay to have facilities permitted,
3. As well as. reduce the confusion of
separate permitting and enforcement.
These comments stated the opinion
that State and Federal governments, the
public, and the environment will benefit
from delegation of NPDES authority to
Florida.
B. Response
Comment noted and supported by
EPAs response to comment number I lL
above.
Condusion
EPA is announcing today the approval
of the State of Florida NPDES permitting
program on May 1. 1995. The State of
Florida has demonstrated that it
adequately meets the requirements For
program authorization as defined in
Sections 402 and 304(i) of the CWA and
at 40 CFR Parts 123 and 403. The State
program will implement state law in
lieu of the Federally administered
program. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service concurred with the EPA ‘ not
likely to adversely affect”
determination. This authorization also
represents a phased NPDES program
authorization encompassing permitting
tori (1) Domestic discharges; (2)
Industrial discharges, including those
which also have storm water discharges:
and (3) pretreatment. Storm water
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems (MS4’s) individual
storm water-only discharges. storm
water general permits. arid Federal
facility discharges are to be phased in b
the year 2000 for administration by the
State. The State is required to submit a
program modification for authorization
of jurisdiction of these types of NPDES
permits to EPA for approval in
accordance with the schedule set forth
in the MOA. This authorization does not
include the sludge management
program.
At this time. EPA has full jurisdiction
of NPDES program authonty for Indian
Lands. All permit applications and
related issues concerning discharges on
Federal Indian Reservations or Indian
Tnbal Lands will be directed to EPA
Region IV.
Federal Register Notice of Approval of
State NPDES Programs or Modifications
EPA must provide Federal Register
notice of any action by the Agency
approving or modifying a State NPDES
program. Today’s Federal Register
notice is to announce the approval of
Florida’s authority to administer the
phased NPDES permit program.
Review Under Regulatory Flexibility
Act and Executive Order 12866
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis for all rules that
may have a significant impact on a
substantial number of entities.
State NPDES Program Status
Alabama
Arkansas
State
Approved
State NPOES
permit
gram
Approved to
regulate fed’
eral facilities
Approved
Slate
pretreatment
program
Approved gen-
eral permits
program
10/19/79
1 1101/86
05114/73
10119179
11/01/86
05/05178
10119179
11/01186
09/22189
06/26/91
11/01/86
09/22/89
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 92 / Friday. May 12. 1995 / Notices
25723
ciorado
Stat OES
permit pro.
Approved
pretreattiefit
.,. ,
03/04/83
03/27 175
._._
._ ._
Coiineedcut .___.___
0 9 / 2 8 /73
04101174
0 1109/80
.__.......
06103181
—_ ,
03 110/92
10/23 /92
Delaware
Georgia
06/28(74
11128174
10/23/77
01101175
12108/80
06I0 1 179
09120179
12109178
03112181
08112183
..
.. ...._
01128191
09/30 /91
01/04/84
04 102/91
Hawaii . ...
Illinois .._ ...... ._ ...._.,....,.
Indiana .......
08 /1 0118
06/28174
09130183
06106174
10117/73
06/30/74
05101174
10/30174
06 /10 /74
06112174
09119(75
08 /10 (78
08128185
09130183
11l10187
12(09178
12109178
01 / 28183
06126179
06123/81
11102 (79
08131/78
06103181
.......... ..
09130183
09 130185
04/16/85
07/16(79
05113 (82
06103/81
—
09107/84
08/12(92
11/24/93
09/30183
09130191
11/29/93
12115/87
09(27191
12/12/85
04/29/83
07/20189
07/21192
... _. ... ....... .. ...... .. ....
Kansas ... .. .... .....
Kennicky
Maryland ........._ .....
Michigan - .. ....._. ....
Minnesota — .... ... _._ .._.. ....._.
Mississippi . ....._.._.. ..
Missouri ........ - .. .......
Montana .. ...... — —.
Nebraska .._ ...__.._._..___._...
Nevada .._... ...__.._..
New Jersey . .
04/13/82
10/28(75
10/19/75
06/13/75
04/13/82
06(13/80
09(28/84
01(22(90
04 /13/82
......
06/14(82
...... ......
04 /13/82
10/15192
• 09/06191
01/23/90
New York . - - .. - ...... .
North Carolina
.. - -. - -.
North Dakota ._.......... ._
Ohio .._. — — - - —
03111/74
09l26/73
06 /30(78
09/17184
06110(75
12/30/93
12128 (77
07107/87
03/11/74
06 / 30(78
01(28/83
03102(79
06/30178
09117/84
09(26180
12130/93
09/30186
07(07/87
._._._
07(27/83
03/12/81
09 /17 (84
04/09/82
12/30(93
08110183
07/07 /87
03 /18182
..................... ..
08 /17 )92
02/23/82
08/02/91
09/1 7)84
09/03/92
•12l30/93
04/18/91
07107 /87
08/26193
......
Oregon ... .. .. ...... -. .. .... -.
Pennsylvania
. .. - -
Rhode Island
— — —
South Carolina
- -
South Dakota
.. -.
Tennessee - - .. -
Utah
- .. ....... ...........
Vermont
Wgin Islands - ..... . —
Virginia .
03/31/75
11I14 /73
05(10/82
03(04/74
01/30/75
02109/82
......._........
05110182
11/26 ( 79
05/18 /81
04/14189
09/30186
05/10182
12124/80
......
05/20)91
09128(89
05110182
12/19)86
09/24191
Washington
Weet Virginia ._._..._.
Wisconsin
Wyoming . ... __._ ........
Tctals.......... ...... - .. -
40
35
28
39
Nunter 01 Fully Authorized Programs (Federal Faodties, Pretreatment, General Permits) - 25.
Review Under Regulatory Flexibility
Act and Executive Order 12868
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis for all rules that
may have a significant impact on a
substantial number of entities. The
proposed approval of the Florida
NPDES program does not alter the
regulatory control over any industrial
category. No new substantive
requirements are established by this
action. Therefore, because this notice
does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities, a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not
needed.
On October 12. 1993, the Office of
Management and Budget exempted this
Agency action from the requirements of
Executive Order 12866.
John II. Hankinson4r..
Regional Administrator.
(FR D cc. 95-41792 Filed 5—11—95:8:45 aml
aILuNO CCC ! se.e-ie-
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Farmers & Merchants Bank Employee
Stock Ownership Ptan ’ Acquisition of
Company Engaged In Permissible
Nonbanking Activities
The organiantion listed in this n rtice
has applied under § 225.23(a)(2) or (1)
of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR
225.23(a)(2) or (f)) for the Board’s
approval under section 4(c)(8) of the
Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C.
1843(c)(8)) and § 225.21(a) of Regulation
Y (12 CFR 225.21(a)) to acquire or
control voting securities or assets of a
company engaged in a nonbanking
activity that is listed in § 225.25 oF
Regulation Y as closely related to
banking and permissible for bank
holding companies. Unless otherwise
noted, such activities will be conducted
throughout the United States.
The application is available for
immediate inspection at the Federal
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the
application has been accepted for
processing, it will also be available for
inspection at the offices of the Board of
Governors. Interested persons may
express their views in writing on the
question whether consummation of the
proposal can “reasonably be expected to
produce benefits to the public. such as
greater convenience, increased
competition, or gains in efficiency. that
outweigh possible adverse effects, such
as undue concentration of resources.
decreased or unfair competition.
conflicts of interests, or unsound
banking practices.” Any request for a
hearing on this question must be
accompanied by a statement of the
reasons a written presentation would
not suffice in lieu of a hearing.
identifying specifloally any questions of
fact that are in dispute. summarizing the
evidence that would be presented at a
hearing, and indicating how the party
commenting would be aggrieved by
approval of the proposal.
-------
19484
Corrections
Fe era! Reajater
-
VoL6O,
No.74
Tuesday.
April
18. 1995
This secden of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contaire e tertal reclions of previously
published PresidentIal, Rule. Proposed Ride.
and Notice docsanerts. These correctons are
prepared by the Otficeof the Federal
Register. Agency prepared orn are
csusd as signed documenis and appear in
the apprcpnate document categones
elsewhere in the issue,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Wlliamette Provincial Interagency
Executive Committee (PIEC), Advisory
CommUte.
Correction
In notice document 95-7445
appearing on page 15746 in the issue of
Monday. March 27. 1995. in the second
column, under SUMMARY, in the fifth
line, “255 Capitol Street” should read
“355 Capitol Street..
eu.imo coca isos.ot-o
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of th. Secretory
32 CFR Part 290
Defense Contract Audit Agency
(0CM) Freedom of InfonnatJon Act
Program
Correction
In rule document 95-8852 beginning
on page 18005 In the issue of Monday,
April 10. 1995. the EFFECTIVE DATE
should read “(April 10. 1995).’.
eiwu.a boot izes-.i-o
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 122
(FRL’5182-8J
RIN 2040.AC8O
Amendment to Requiremente for
National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPOES) Permits
for Storm Water Discharges Under
Section 402(p)(6) of the Clean Water
Act
Correction
In rule document 95—8209 beginning
on page 17950 in the issue of Friday
April 7. 1995. make the following
corrections:
On page 17950. in the second column.
under the heading “DATES”, in the
second and last lines. “August 2. 1995”
should read “August 7. 1995.’.
On page 17953, in the third column.
in the last line of the first complete
paragraph. “August 2. 2001” should
tead “August 6, 2001”,
§132.25 (Correctedl
On page 17957, in the first column, in
§ 122.26(gJ(1)(ii), in the second line,
“August 2. 2001” should read “August
6.2001”.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
Delinquent Flier Voluntary Compuani
Program
Correction
In notice document 95—7742
beginning on page 16505 in the issue o
Thursday. March 30. 1995, make the
following correction:
On page 16505. in the second columi
under A. Justification, in the 3rd fUll
paragraph. in the 19th line. “S40 ”
should read “$50”.
SILLIPio ccc i ieee-si -a
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Wage and Hour Division
29 CFR Part 580
Civil Money Penalties—Procedures to
Assessing and Contesting Penalties
Correction
In rule document 95—8335 beginning
on page 17221 in the issueol
Wednesday. April 5. 1995, make the
following correction:
On page 17222. in column one, under
the heading “II. Background”. second
paragraph. in the 10th line, “not”
should read “now”.
coca tses.nt-o
SW1Q coca 1551-01-0
-------
17950
Federal Register I Vol 60. No 67 I Friday. April 7. 1995 I Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGENCY
4OCFR Parts 122 and 124
[ FRL-6182-e1
fIN 204O-A O
Amendment to Requirements for
National PoIIu it Discharge
Elimination Syslem (NPDES) Permits
for Storm Water Discharges Under
Section 402(p)(6) of tie Clean Water
Act
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule
SUMMARY: Today. EPA is promulgating
changes to its National Pollutant
Discharge 1imination System (NPDES)
storm water permit application
re uIauons under the Clean Water Act
(CWA) to establish a sequential
application process for all phase II
storm waler discharges. (Phase II storm
water discharges include all discharges
composed entirely of storm water.
except those specifically classified as
phase I discharges. Phase I discharges
include discharges issued a permit
before February 4. 1987; f4icr ’harges
associated with industrial activity:
discharges from a municipal separate
storm sewer system serving a
population of 100.000 or mere; and
discharges that EPA or an NPDES State!
Indian Tribe determine to be
contribun g to a violation of a water
quality standard or a significant
contributor of pollutants to the waters of
the United States ) Application
deadlines are in two tiers This action
will provide the FIPDES permitting
authonry (either a State/Indian Tribe or
EPA) flexibility to target those phase 11
thschargers that are contributing to a
water quality impairment or are a
significant contributor of pollutants for
permitting within the next six years. All
other phase II dischargers aze required
to apply for a permit only after six years.
and only if the phase U regulatory
program in place at that time requires
such applications.
EPA has also initiates process by
inviting its partners who are
stakeholders in this matter to assist in
the development of additional phase U
rules. which will be finalized by March
1. 1999 These rules will determine the
‘iaure and extent of requirements. if
any. that will apply to the various types
of phase U facilities. Both the changes
to the rules issued today as well as the
development of the comprehensive
phase U program through an
uiclusionary pro a is a response by
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATiON:
Subinisaico of Coents
First, comments may be sent to the
Comment Clerk. Water Docket (Storm
Water Phase U Direct Final Rule). MC-
4101. Environmental Protection Agency.
401 M Street. SW. Washington DC
20460. ItIs requested that an original
and one copy of the comments be
provided to this address. Comments will
be considered to be timely if they ale
postmarked by June 6. 1995.
Commenters who would like
acknowledgment of receipt of their
comments should include a self’
addressed, stamped envelope No
facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
In the alternative. EPA will accept
comments electronically: EPA is
expenmenting with electronic
commenting. Comments should be
addressed to the following Internet
address: SWPH2—DFR epamail.epa.gov
Electronic comments must be submitted
as an ASCII file avoiding the use of
special characters and any form of
encryption. Electronic comments will be
transferred into a paper version for the
official record. EPA will attempt to
clarify electronic comments if there is
an apparent error in transmission.
Comments provided electromcall , will
be considered timely if they are
submitted electronically by 11 59 p m
(Eastern time) June 6. 1995 Since this
is still experimental. commenters ma
want to submit both electronic
comments and duplicate paper
comments This document has.also been
placed on the Internet for public review
and downloading at the following
location’ gopher.epa gov
A copy of the supporting information
for this rule is available for review at
EPA’s Water Docket. Room L—102 401
M Street, SW. Washington. DC 20460
For access to the docket matenals. call
(202) 260—3027 between 9 a.m and 3 30
p m. (Eastern time) for an appointment
EPA to the direction of the President on
February 21. 1995. regarding regulatory
reform
DATES: This final rule will be effective
on August 2. 1995 unless significant
adverse or critical comments that would
cause the Agency to change its position I. Overview of Today’s Action
are received by June 6, 1995. In Today. EPA is promulgating changes
accordance with 40 CFR 23 2. this rule to its NPDES storm water permit
shall be considered final for purposes of application regulations under the CW
judicial review at 1 p m (Eastern tune) r estabh5h a commonsense approach
on August 2. 1995 - WhiCh Will provide for a sequential
ADDRESSES: Written comments on th - application process for all phase II
rule may be submitted using one of two storm water discharges. Application
different methods. See SUPPLEMENTARY deadlines axe In two tiers. To obtain re.d
IWORMATION for information on environmental rem,.lts earlier, the
submitting comments. highest priority is being assigned to
FOR FURThER INFORMATiON CONTACT: those phase U dischargers that the
NPDES permitting authority (either
Nancy C’inrunghazn. Office of State/Indian Tribe or EPA) determines
Wastewater Management. Permits
Division (4203). Environmental are contributing to a water qualit
Protection Agency. 401 M S t. SW. impairment or are a significant
Washington. DC 20460. (202) 260—9535. contributor of pollutants. These
diachargers will be required to apply for
a permit to the permitting authority
within 180 ays of receipt of notice
unless permission for a later date is
granted. This process will allow th?
permitting authority to focus their
current efforts on those facilities that
will produce the greatest environmental
benefit earher. All phase II facilities that
are not designated shall apply to the
permitting authority no later than si’
years fram the effective date of this
regulation. and only if the phase Il
regulatory program in place at that timp
requires such applications. EPA is also
establishing application requirements
for these discharges. as well as making
other conforming changes to other
portions of its NPDES regulations
Today’s action is the first step iii
EPA’s approach to develop a
comprehensive phase II program wi 1t r
Clean Water Act (CWA) section
402(p)(6J and is consistent with
President Clinton’s February 21. IOYI
direction on regulatory reform as well a’
the Office of Water’s “National Program
Agenda for the Future.’ EPA cannol
deal with all storm water issues in
today’s action. Some issues raised b
stakeholders. such as funding for ston°
water best management practices and
certain issues with regard to complian
with water quality standards. can On I V
be resolved by legislative action In fart
EPA supported certain statutory chan ’
or clartficauons to the storm waler
program last year in President Clinton
Clean Water Initiative. Some issUes
such as the nature and extent.. I
requirements. if any. that will appl% I I ’
the various types of phase 11 sourCes.
can be resolved through nilemal.iflS
EPA has initiated a process of nvitiflg
its partners who aie stnkeholdatSt0
participate in development of
-------
Federal Register / Vol . 60. No. 67 I Friday. April 7. 1995 / Rules and Regulations
17951
expectations and requirements for more
comprehensive phase II rules, as well as
revisions and refinements to phase I.
EPA expects stakaholders will consider
the lessons learned from the phase I
storm water program in relooking at the
phase I application process and
requirements. EPA intends to propose
those rules by September 1. 1997, and
finalize those rules by March 1. 1999 If
the CWA is amended in a manner to
deal with these storm water issues. CP
will move to expeditiously implement
the statutory changes. Todays
rulemaking will promote the public
interest by relieving dischargers of the
requirement to apply for permits until
(1) a phase II program is in place that
can be defined by regulation or changes
to the statute or (2) the permitting
authority makes an affirmative finding
of the need for a permit to protect water
quality
II. Background
A Phase I of the Storm Water Program
The Clean Water Act
The 1972 amendments to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (referred to
as the Clean Water Act).prohzbit the
discharge of any pollutant to navigable
waters from a point source unless the
discharge is authorized by a NPDES
permit. While water pollution control
measures in the United States for
industrial process wastewacer and
municipal sewage have had major
success, urban and agricultural runoff
continue to contribute to our Nations
remaining water quality problems.
EPAs Report to Congress under section
305(b) entitled The National Water
Quality Inventory. 1992 Report to
Congress. provides a national
assessment of surface water impacts
associated with runoff from various land
uses The latest report concludes that
storm water runoff horn a number of
diffuse sources. including municipal
separate storm sewers and urban runoff
is a leading cause of water quality
impairment cited by States.
Section 402(p) was added to the CWA
in 1987 to require implementation of a
comprehensive two-phased approach
for addressing storm water discharges
under the NPDES program. Section
402(p)(1 ) currently prohibits EPA or
NPDES States (including Indian Tribes
authorized to operate the NPDES
program) from requiring permits for
discharges composed entirely of storm
water (storm water discharges) until
October 1. 1994. except for the
following five classes of phase I storm
water discharges specifically listed
under section 402(p)(Z).
(a) discharges issued a permit before
February 4. 1987.
(b) discharges associated with
industrial activity.
(C) discharges from a municipal
separate storm sewer system serving a
population of 250.000 or more.
(dl discharges from a municipal
separate storm sewer system serving a
population of 100.000 or more but less
than 250 000.
(e) discharges that EPA or an NPDES
Slate (or Tribe authorized to be treated
as a Slate for this purpose) determine to
be contributing Co a violation of a water
quality standard or a significant
contributor of pollutants to the waters of
the United States. (EPA issued guidance
on August 8. 1900 that included a
discussion of designation authority I
Under CWA section 402(l)(2). permits
are not required for certain dischargers.
specifically, storm water runoff from
mining operations or oil and gas
facilities if the storm water
discharge is not contaminated by
contact with • any overburden, raw
material, intermediate product. finished
product. byproduct. or waste product
located on the site of such operations
CWA section 502(14) excludes
agricultural storm water discharges from
the definition of point source, thereby
excluding these discharges from the
NPDES permit requirement.
Section 402(p)(3) established
requirements for permits issued under
phase I of the storm water program
while section 4 02 (p)(4) established
statutory deadlines for the initial steps
in implementing the phase I program.
Phase I Regulatory Program
EPA promulgated regulations defining
application requirements in 40 CFR
122.26 for phase 1 storm water
discharges on November 16, 1990 (55
FR 479901 Permits are required for large
(over 250.000 population served) and
medium (100.000—250.000 population
served) municipal separate storm sewer
systems (MS4); storm water discharges
issued a permit before February 4. 1987.
storm water discharges “associated with
industrial activity,” which are identified
in the regulations by 11 specific
categories; and those dischargers
designated by the NPDES State or EPA.
EPA amended the November 1990
application regulations in various
respects in 1992 in response to a court
ruling in NRDCv EPA, 966 F 2d 1202
(9th Cit.. 1992) in which EPA
established generally applicable permit
issuance deadlines In addition, EPA
noted that the Agency was not requiring
permit applications from the two
categories of storm water discharges
associated with industrial acia ity
(construction activities disturbing less
than 5 acres and light industry without
exposure to storm water) until
application requirements were
established by regulation (57 FR 60444.
December 18, 1992.)
Phase I Implementation Activities
The efforts of EPA and the authorized
NPDES Slates to implement the phase I
storm water program have focused on
(1) issuing general permits for industrial
storm water discharges. (2) revie % ing
group applications for industrial storm
water dischargers. (3) publishing a
proposed multi.sector general permits
for storm water discharges from 29
industrial sectors. (4) reviewing
applications and issuing permits for
municipal separate storm sewer
systems. and (5) conducting outreach
activities
B Phase II of the Storm lt’ater Program
Water Quality Act of 1987 and Later
Amendments
The 1987 amendments established a
process for EPA to evaluate potential
phase I I sources and designate sources
for regulation to protect waler quality
Section 402(pH5) requires EPA. in
consultation with the States, to conduct
two studies of storm water discharges
other than phase I sources (i.e.. potential
phase I I sources). The first study. under
section 4O2(p115) (A) and (B) (to be
completed by October 1. 1988), was to
identify storm water discharges not
covered under phase I and determine, to
the maximum extent practicable. the
nature and extent of pollutants in such
discharges. The second study. under
section 402(p)(5)(C) (to be completed b
October 1. 1989). was to establish
procedures and methods to control
storm water discharges to the extent
necessary to mitigate impacts on water
quality
Section 4O 2 (p)( 6 ) of the CWA requires
EPA. in consultation with State and
local officials and based on the findings
of the reports required under section
402(p)(5). to issue regulations that
designate additional storm water
discharges to be controlled to protect
water quality under phase U of the
program and to establish a
comprehensive program to regulate such
designated sources. The program shall,
at a minimum, establish priorities.
requirements for State storm water
management programs. and expeditious
deadlines. The program may include
performance standards, guidelines.
guidance. and management practices
and treatment requirements. as
appropriate. These regulations were to
be issued by October 1. 1993. EPA did
-------
17952 Federal Register i Vol hO . No. h7 I Friday. April 7. 19 5 I Rules . mnd Regulations
not issue these regulations by the
statutory deadline. Today’s action is d
common sense approach which delines
and establishes appli tfon submittal
requirements for phase II of the NPOES
program for storm water. As noted
below. EPA will be revising these
requirements ov”r the next several years
in partnership with its numerous
stakeholders.
September’) I ’P ’42 Nolite — Phai.e II
Issues
On September 9. 1992. EPA published
a notice requesting information and
public comment on the phase I I program
(57 FR 41:44) The notice identified
three seis of issues associated with
developing phase U regulations.
including It) how sources should be
idenulied. (2) types of control strategies
for these sources, and (3) deadlines for
implementing the requirements. The
notice pres. nted a range of alternatives
under each ssue in an attempt to
illustrate and obtain input on. the full
range of poter.ual approaches for a
phase II strategy EPA received more
than 130 comments on the notice from
mwucipalities. trade groups or
industries. State or Federal agencIe.s.
and other miscellaneous souri-es No
comments were received from
environmental groups.
Rensselaerville Phase LI Effort
In early 1093. the Rensselaerville
Institute and EPA held public and
expert meetings to assist in developing
and analyzing options for identifying
phase I I sources and controls. One of the
options most favored by the various
groups parucipatuig included use of a
tiered approa b that would provide for
EPA selection of high prionty sources
for control by NPDES permits and State
selection of other sources for control
under a State program other than the
NPDES pro am
Storm Water Reports to Congress
EPA is transmitting to Congress
concurrently with this action. its first
report required under sections 402 1p 1 15}
(A) and (B). This report is contained in
the record or ihis rule. This report was
broadly circulated in November 1993 by
the Agency to the Stales, trade groups.
environmental groups. Congressional
staff, other interested parties. and all
people who requested a copy EPA
recei ed comments from various States
and other grciu s and made changes. as
appropnat-. :o respond to those
commeats
Section 402 p)(5J(C) requires a second
study of storm waler discharges for the
purpose of establishing procedures anti
methods to ccntrnl storm water
discharges that were riot addressed as
part of the first phase of the NP DES
storm water program to the extent
necessary to mitigate impacts on water
quality. President Clinton’s Clean Water
Initiative, which was released on
February 1. 1994. contains the Agency’s
recommendations for phase II and is
considered by EPA to be the second
Report to Congress. EPA has included
these materials in its report that is being
submitted to Congress
PresiJent Clinton s Ch’ari W t r
Initiative
President Clinton s CLean Water
Initiative addresses a number of issues
associated with NPDES reqiarements for
storm water discharges. inLiuding U)
establishing a phased approach for
compliance of discharges from
municipal separate storm sewer sstems
with water quality standards with a
focus on controWng discharges from
growth and development areas. (2)
clarifying that the Maximum Extent
Practical standard should be applied in
a site specific. flexible manner taking
into account cost considerations as well
as water quality effects. (3) providing for
an exemption from the storm water
program for industrial facilities with no
activities or no significant materials
exposed to storm water. (4) pro ’iding
for deadline extensions for phase U of
the storm water program. (5) providing
for a targeted approach for phase U
storm water program requirements.
including regulation of storm water
from industrial facilities by
municipalities, and (6) providing 1 or
control of discharges from inactive and
ab3ndoned mines located on Federal
lands in a more targeted. fh xihle
manner.
Several bills to ieauthorize the (ThVA
which include amendments to NPDES
requirements for storm water were
introduced in the House and Senate in
the 103rd Congress; however.
substantive changes to the CWA were
not made. Provisions contained in the
President’s Im tiative, as weil as the
other bills, will be considered iw the
Agency in its compreher.sive
rulemaking involving stakeholders. to
the extent the Agency is authorized to
make changes discussed there tinier
existing law.
The Agency recogn zas that there may
be action in the 104th Congress to
change storm water requirements.
Stakeholders have raised some issues
thai go wel! beyond the scope of EPA’s
regulatory authority and can only be
addressed by legislation. Certain panics
have requested that the Agency delay
issuance of this regulation until
Congress acts. EPA is obligated iii
implement the current law and is taking
this action to provide certainty to phase
II dischargers as to when their perrnii
applications are due if relief is not
provided through regulatory or
legislative action. EPA is willing ii,
work with affected parties on statutory
issues and, if the law is char.ged. will
move to expeditiously implement iSi ’
changes.
October 1. l!J94 D .nlline for f’i’rmi;’
under Phase U
On October 18. 19 J4, EPA i sutti1
guidance interpreting the October I
1994. statutory deadline pertaIning ‘o
phase II storm water dischargers. The
memorandum recognized that EPA hart
,not issued regulations implementing thi-
requirements of section 4 02 (p)(fi ) before
October 1. 1994: and the Agency and
approved NPDES States are unable to
waive the statutory requirement that
point source discharges of pollti ancs i
waters of the United States need an
NPDES permit. The memorandum .iisn
recognized that at the time of the
guidance. EPA had completed a dra
study identifvmg potenital point sourr .
disrharies of storm water for reguL ror.
consideration under the requirements of
section 4O2IpH6) (as noted. EPA is
transmitting the Reports to Congress).
and the Agency had initiated a process
to develop implementing regulations (of
which today’s action is a part). The
guidance also referred to the general
application requirements for the NPDES
program and the Agency’s January 12.
1994. storm water enforcement s?raIPgv
EPA Instituting Federal Advisors
Committee Effort
The Agency has established a Fe,ier .il
Advisory Committee Act advisory
committee to provide advice on various
wet weather issues. EPA will work with
a subcommittee of this advisory
committee to form a parenershrn In
specifically address phase U storm uater
issues. This action will complement the
specific regulatory action EPA is taking
today. Both actions ate part of the
Agency’s response to the President’s
direction on regulatory reform. EP;
wants to develop a common sew.e
approach to allow EPA and the Slatr!/
Indian Tubes to manage for results in
developing a phase I I storm water
program that will provide ecosystem
protection. EPA believes there is
considerable latitude and flexibility
within the existing language cnr.ta ne.I
in section 4O 2 (p)1 6 ) to establishing th
scope and extent of the phase II program
and the nature of the controls used.
Some questions EPA will advance bii I i
upon the input the Agency has received
earlier on phase U. including questions
-------
Federal Register / VoL 60. No. 67 I Friday. April 7. 1995 / Rules and Regulations
17953
addressing (1) the scope. mechanisms
and timing of phase II. (2) how EPA can
work more effectively with the varying
interests to provide outreach and
technical assistance for phase II. and (3)
consideration of lessons learned from
phase I. EPA would be receptive to
including in the inclusionary process
other issues that have developed broad’
- based support; these issues may include
research, cost-effective solutions and
expedited implementation. EPA is in
the early stages of development of the
specifics of the phase II program. which
can and will include revisions and
refinements to phase I. including
relooking at the phase I application
process and requirements. EPA
recognizes that many of the
municipalities and industrial facilities
that are subject to the phase I
requirements believe there is a need to
make malor changes to phase 1.
EPA is committed to conducting this
phase II process. including
improvements to Limited portions of
phase I. in an inclusionary manner.
inviting representatives of affected
stakeholders ‘to the table” to discuss
their respective interests.
Today’s regulatory action is being
taken as a common sense approach to
provide a framework under existing law
for these actions to be undertaken in an
orderly fashion, as well as certainty
regarding the status of phase U
discharges. This approach will allow the
permitting authority to manage for
results by providing the flexibility to
call certain phase U dischargers into the
program based upon a finding of water
quality impact.
UI. Today’s Action
Regulation Changes
Today. EPA is promulgating changes
to its NPDES storm water permit
application regulations to establish a
sequential application process for all
phase U storm water discharges.
Application deadlines are in two tiers.
To obtain real environmental results
earlier, the highest priority is being
assigned to those phase II dlsrhargers
that the NPDES permitting authonty
(either a State/Indian Tribe or EPA)
determines are contributing to a water
quality impairment or are a significant
contributor of pollutants. These
dischargers will be required to apply for
a permit within 180 days of receipt of
notice from the permitting authority,
unless permission for a later date is
granted All other phase II facilities will
be required to apply to the permitting
authority no later than six years from
the effective date of this regulation if the
phase I! regulatory program in place at
that time requires such applications.
EPA is also establishing application
requirements for these d ischarges. as
well as making other conforming
changes to other portions of its NPDES
regulations. The specifics of the changes
follow.
First. to codify the already existing
statutory requirement upon the
expiration of the moratorium for phase
II storm water discharges, EPA is adding
40 CFR 122.26(a)(9) to bring into the
NPDES program. as of October 1. 1994.
discharges composed entirely of storm
water that are not otherwise already
required by the phase I regulations to
obtain a permit. EPA considers the
portions of the two phase I categories
that were remanded by the court in
NRDC v. EPA to be covered by these
phase II requirements. as are the
facilities owned by municipalities that
were otherwise excluded from phase I
by the [ ntermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(Transportation Act). These phase II
storm water dischargers will be required
to apply for a permit according to the
application requirements in new
§ 122.26(g). This provision continues to
recognize the applicability of statutory
NPDES exemptions provided by CWA
sections 402(1) and 502(14).
Second. EPA is adding 40 CFR
122.26(g). which will contain the
regulatory requirements for discharges
composed entirely of storm water under
section 402(p)(6). Any operator of a
point source required to obtain a permit
under § 122.26(a)(9) shall submit an
application in accordance with the
following requirements.
Section 122.26(gl(1) contains the
application deadlines. If a phase [ I
discharger complies with these
application deadlines, the facility will
not be subject to enforcement action for
discharge without a permit or for failure
to submit a permit application. First, if
the permitting authority (the regulations
use the term “Director” which means
either the NPDES State/Indian Tribe
Director or EPA Regional Administrator.
or authorized representative) determines
and notifies the discharger that a
discharge contributes to a violation of a
water quality standard or is a significant
contributor of pollutants to waters of the
United States, the operator shall apply
for a permit to the permitting authority
within 180 days of receipt of notice.
unless permission for a later date is
granted (see 40 CFR 124.52(c)). This
provision will allow the NPDES
permitting authority to manage for
envirorunental results by providing the
flexibility to bring certain phase U
sources within the NPDES program at
this time, as determined necessary by
the State/Indian Tribe or EPA. This
determination can be done on a
watershed or class basis where the
permitting authority determines there is
a significant impact or contribution. In
addition, the NPDES permitting
authority may find the information
contained in the Storm Water Reports to
Congress useful in determining the
location and nature of such impacts.
The August 9, 1990, guidance EPA
issued on designation authority may be
useful in making this determination.
The 180 day time period provided for
submission of an application is
consistent with the time period
provided for other situations in the
NPDES program where a facility is
asked to submit an application (40 CFR
122.21(c)(1) and (2)) and the time period
generally provided for applications for
permit renewal (40 G’R 122.2 1(d)). EPA
recognizes that this time period is
longer than that provided by existing
regulations for those phase I storm water
dischargers designated into the program
(40 CFR 122.26(e)(5)). EPA is
establishing this longer time period to
provide an opportunity for the phase U
discharger to communicate with the
permitting authority about necessary
information, as well as to collect and
submit the application information.
AU other phase II facilities shall apply
to the State! Indian Tribe or EPA Region
no later than six years from the effective
date of this regulation. EPA may change
this application deadline for at least
certain categories of dischargers in the
future as part of the rulemaking process
involving its various partners dealing
with the scope. nature and extent to the
phase II program. However, if changes
are not made, all phase U storm water
di.ichargers will have to submit
applications by August 2, 2001.
Section 122.26(g)(21 contains
provisions for application requirements
for phase II discharges. At this time, the
existing phase! individual industrial
application requirements in
§ 122.26(c)(1) or application
requirements for municipal separate
storm sewer discharges contained in
§ 122.26(d) will be the requirements for
phase U discharges. unless otherwise
modl ed by the permitting authority. As
noted earlier, EPA will be relooking at
the application requirements as part of
the advisory committee on wet weather
issues.
EPA is also specifically providing for
and encouraging the use of general
permits for phase II discharges and
would require submission of a notice of
intent to be covered by the general
permit. consistent with the current
requirements of 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2) for
phase I storm water discharges. EPA and
-------
17954
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No . 67 / Friday. April 7, 1995 / Rules arid Regulations
the authorized States have effectively
and efficiently used general permits for
phase I storm water discharges and EPA
believes general permits also will be an
effective mechanism to use in phase [ I.
when NPDES permits are required.
Group applications for phase U
discharges are not provided for because
the general permit process will be
available to almost all phase II
discharges. -
In developing phase LI permits, the
permitting authority may apply the
requirements contained in section
4 O 2 (p)( 3 ). which are the requirements
for phase I permits. on a case-by-case
basis at this time using best professional
judgment.
EPA is also making several
conforming changes to other portions of
40 CFR 122.26. First. EPA is changing
the date for the permit moratorium
contained in § 122.26(a)(1) to October 1,
1994. to reflect the change in this date
provided by the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992. Second, EPA
is amending the title to § 122.26(e) to
read “Application deadlines under
paragraph (all II” to make clear that
these are phase I requirements and
application. deadlines, as interpreted by
EPA. Third. EPA is amending
§ 122.26(e)(1)(ii) which are the permit
application requirements for’those
municipally owned facilities for whom
application deadlines were postponed
by the Transportation Act to reflect the
fact that these are now phase [ I
facilities. (Section 1068(c) of the
Transportation Act amended the CWA
to provide that EPA shall not require
any municipality with a population of
less than 100.000 to apply for or obtain
a permit for any storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity other
than an airport. power plant. or
uncontrolled sanitary landfill owned or
operated by such municipalities before
October 1. 1992.) Because EPA is not
mglring available the group application
process in phase 11. aimfluir changes aie
not being made to § 122.26(e)(2).
EPA is also making changes to other
applicable NPDES regulatory
provisions. EPA is modifying the
requirements of 40 CFR 122.21(cfll) to
clarify that new phase Ii storm water
discharges do not have to submit a
permit application until six years after
the effective date of this regulation, or
earlier if designated by the permitting
authority. EPA is making conforming
changes to 40 CFR 124.52(c) to clarify
the application of these provisions to
both phase I and phase II storm water
discharges.
Basis of Regulations
Today’s action is the first step of
EPAs approach to develop a
comprehensive phase II program under
section 4OZ(pfl6), and is consistent with
President Clinton’s February 21. 1995,
direction on regulatory reform and the
Office of Water’s December 30. 1994,
“National Water Program Agenda for the
Future.” EPA has initiated an
inclusionarv process involving its
partners to develop more
comprehensive phase II rules; EPA
intends to propose those rules by
September 1. 1997, and finalize those
rules by March 1. 1999. In the
comprehensive phase LI rulemaking.
EPA will consider input from all
stakeholders. as well as the input that
has already been provided to the
Agency on the phase [ 1 September 1992
notice and the 1993 Rensselaerville
Institute phase II effort discussed earlier
in this notice. EPA will also consider
the information in the Storm Water
Reports to Congress. and the
recommendations in President Clinton’s
Clean Water Initiative Finally. EPA will
implement any statutory changes that
are enacted during program
development. Today’s action is based on
recommendations in those documents to
the extent they envision an orderly,
tiered process for regulation of storm
water, allowing the NPDES permitting
authority to manage for results at this
time. EPA is considering making other
changes to improve its operation of the
phase I storm water program in the
comprehensive phase U rulemaking
action, including revising phase I
municipal application requirements.
The regulation issued today fulfills, in
part. the requirements contained in
section 4O2tpK6) of the CWA. It is being
issued by EPA today after consultation
with State, local officials. Indian Tribes,
and parts of the regulated and
environmental community. The
regulation, which is the first of a
sequential process, is consistent with
the information contained in the Storm
Water Reports to Congress and the
President’s Initiative as it is providing
the framework of a tiered
implementation of phase II
requirements, allowing the NPDES
permitting authority current flexibility
to manage for results, The application
requirements allow the NPDES
permitting authority to bring within the
phase II program at this time those
phase I I discharges impacting water
quality or who are a significant
contributor of pollutants and, if EPA
does not take action to change its
regulations, will require a permit
application from all phase U storm
water discharges in 6 years.
The regulations also establish a
comprehensive program containing
current permit application
requirements. The permitting authority
will be able to establish appropriate
permit requirements on a case.by.case
basis at this time. This first portion of
the phase II program establishes
priorities and deadlines, for permit
applications, which, as currently
structured, will be a part of the NPDES
program. These requirements and
changes to 40 CFR 122.26 and
conforming changes to other NPDES
requirements in part 122 are required
parts of State/Tribal NPDES programs
(see 40 CFR 123,25), The initial portion
of the phase II program which is being
established today does not contain a
comprehensive set of performance
standards, guidelines, guidance.
management practices, and treatment
requirements. These conditions can oe
established by the permitting authority
on a case-by-case basis upon permit
issuance to designated phase U
discharges. Finally, these conditions
may be further defined by EPA when it
revises the phase [ 1 program regulauons
as described above,
Today’s action adopts a tiered
approach for selection of high priority
soui’ces to be controlled by NPDES
permits. which was the lead option
presented for public comment in the
September 1992 notice, and one of the
options most favored by the various
groups participating in the effort
conducted in early 1993 by the
Rensselaerville Institute and EPA, as
well as the Storm Water Reports to
Congress and the President’s Clean
Water Initiative. In its rulemaking effort,
EPA believes there will be discussion
with its partners of other approaches
that will provide flexibility to the States
to deal with sources that are not of as
high a priority using other frameworks
and approaches.
In the September 1992 phase [ I notice,
EPA invited comment on various issues
regarding phase II of the storm water
program. including the appropriate
deadlines for implementing phase [ I
requirements. The comments EPA
received on this issue generally
recommended implementation of phase
II in stages and reiterated the need for
time to prepare regulations and to
conduct outreach to implement the
program, as well as the need to wait and
study the results of implementation of
phase I of the program. The actions EPA
is taking today are consistent with these
comments.
-------
Federal Register / VoL. 60. No. 67 / Friday. April 7. 1995 I Rules and Regulations
17955
Supporting Documentation
A. Executive Order 12666
Under Executive Order 12366 (58 FR
51735. October 4. 1993), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatozy
action is ‘significant.” and therefore
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (0MB) and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines ‘significant
regulatory action” as one that is likely
to lead to a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of 5100 million or more, or
adversely and materially affecting a
sector of the economy, productivity.
competition, jobs, the anvtronment
public health or safety. or State. local.
or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, g iants. user fees.
or loan programs. or the rights and
obligations, of recipients thereof;
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
Presidents priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
EPA has determined that this
rulemaking significantly reduces the
current regulatory burden imposed on
phase II facilities. This rule was
submitted to 0MB for review.
B. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875.
entitled “Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership”, issued
by the President on October 26, 1993.
the Agency is required to develop an
effective process to allow elected
officials and other representatives of
State and Tribal governments to provide
meaningful and timely input in the
development of regulatory proposals.
EPA fully supports this objective and
has initiated a consultation process with
both States and Tnbes which will be
continued through public comment
period on these actions.
Specifically. EPA has discussed this
action with the representatives of the
States, locals governments, the Agency’s
American Indian Environmental Office
(AIEO), and parts of the regulated
community.
The reaction of the States is positive.
The States and the Association of State
and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators (ASIWPCA) support the
approach that is being taken under
existing law; the States and ASIWPCA
also support concurrent changes to the
law. ASIWPCA has submitted a letter to
the Agency dated March 3. 1995. which
is included in the record for this matter.
EPA has responded to many of
ASIWPCA’s comments in this preamble.
The reaction of the municipalities is
that they prefer a statutory change now
to clarify the issue once and for all.
Municipalities’ representatives
(National Association of Counties.
National League of Cities, U.S.
Conference of Mayors. and the National
Association of Flood and Stormwater
Management Agencies) have raised
many issues to the Agency and have
submitted a letter dated February 16.
1995. to the Agency which is contained
in the record for this matter. The
municipalities believe that it is
inappropriate for EPA to act now when
Congress may act on this matter, that the
action taken by EPA is not in
conformance with the law, and that EPA
did not consult with local officials on
this matter. EPA has responded to many
of the municipalities’ concerns
including the legal basis of its action
and potential changes to the statute in
this preamble. EPA did consult with
various representatives of local
governments early in the development
of this regulation as well as more
comprehensively in February.
The reaction of EPA’s AIEO is
positive; the Office of Water will work
through the AIEO to provide for a Tribal
representative to participate in the
inclusionary process.
EPA believes that it has developed an
effective process to obtain input from
State. Tribal and local governments
before issuance of this rule, as well as
receiving comments on the direct final
rule and accompanying proposed
rulemaking, and has met the
consultation requirements for States.
federally recognized Tribes and
localities under the terms of Executive
Order 12875.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act. 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., is intended to
minimize the reporting and record-
keeping burden on the regulated
community, as well as to minimize the
cost of Federal information collection
and dissemination. In general, the Act
requires that information requests and
record-keeping requirements affecting
ten or more non-Federal respondents be
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget.
EPA’s existing information collection
request (ICR) entitled “Application for
NPDES Discharge Permit and Sewage
Sludge Management Permit” (0MB
Number 2040—0086) contains
information that responds to this issue
for all storm water discharges, including
those facilities designated into the
program. EPA will review and revise the
estimates contained in this ICR. as
appropriate, in its renewal process.
0. Regulator,’ Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA). 5 U.S.C 601 et seq.. EPA must
prepare a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis for regulations having a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The RFA
recognizes three kinds of small entities,
and defines them as follows:
(1) Small governmental
jurisdictions—any government of a
district with a population of less than
50.000.
(2) Small business—’any business
which is independently owned and
operated and not dominant in its field,
as defined by the Small Business
Administration regulations under the
Small Business Act.
(3) Small organization—any not.for-
profit enterprise that is independently
owned and operated and not dominant
in its field.
EPA has determined that today’s rule
would not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities,
and that a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis therefore is unnecessary. The
basis for this determination is through
today’s action EPA is benefiting small
entities as this action (1) adopts a
common sense approach to deal with
the issue of storm water phase II
requirements, (2) provides the ability for
the State/Tribe or EPA to manage for
results by providing flexibility to the
permitting authority to deal with storm
water phase U permitting at this time
based on water quality violations or
significant contribution of pollutants.
and (3) clarifies and reduces currently
applicable burdens for those facilities
current subject to phase II statutory
•requizements. Finally, the Agency is
committed to issue its comprehensive
storm water phase U program
regulations by March 1. 1999: in that
rulemaking EPA will reconsider Its
Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis.
6’. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed
into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must
prepare a written statement to
accompany proposed rules where the
estimated costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector.
will be 3100 million or more in any one
year. Under section 205. EPA must
select the most cost’effective and least
burdensome alternative that achieves
the objective of such a rule and that is
consistent with statutory requirements.
Section 203 requires EPA to establish a
-------
17956 Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 67 / Friday. April 7. 1995 / Rules and Regulations
plan for informing and advising any
small governments that may be
significantly and uniquely affect by any
rule.
EPA estimates that the costs to State,
local, or tribal governments, or the
private sector, from this rule will be less
than Sl0O million. This rulemaking
significantly reduces the immediate
regulatory burden imposed on phase II
facilities. EPA has determined that an
unfunded mandates statement therefore
is unnecessary.
Although not required to make a
finding under section 206. EPA
concludes that this rule is cost-effective
and a significant reduction in burden for
State and local governments. In a
September 9. 1992. Federal Register
notice. EPA invited comment process
for public consideration of reasonable
alternative approaches for the phase U
storm water program. Today’s rule
provides for the first step for any of
those alternatives by providing for an
orderly process for development of
regulations. By establishing regulatory
relief until development of those
alternative approaches. today’s
rulemaking itself provides the most
cost-effective and least burdensome
alternative to achieve the objectives of
the rule at this stage. consistent with
statutory requirements.
As discussed previously, EPA
initiated consultation with
representative oigeni.etions of small
governments under Executive Order
12875. In doing so. EPA provided notice
to potentially affected small
governments to enable them to provide
meaningful and timely input. EPA plans
to inform, educate, and advise small
governments on compliance with any
requirements that may be develop in
further development of storm water
phase II rules in the course of the wet
weather advisory committee convened
for this purpose. That committee will
also provide advice related to
reconsideration of existing application
requirements that already affect small
governments.
P. Adminis ative Procedure
Reqwrenients
The Agency is publlehing this action
as a “direct final” nile. A direct final
rule is not an “interim final” rule (i.e.
a rule which provides for public
comment after it has gone into effect):
rather it isa rule which is publishad
with a delayed effective date allowing
for the receipt of and response to public
comment before the rule goes into effect.
A response to all comments received
will be placed in the docket for this
rulemaking prior to the effective date.
This rulemaking thus fully complies
with notice and comment requrrements
under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA). EPA has chosen to use the direct
final approach for this rule because the
Agency does not expect to receive
significant adverse or critical comment
and to allow for the most expeditious
implementation possible. consistent
with the APR. Because in the absence
of this rule, thousands of municipalities
and other storm water discharges are
currently operating in violation of the
CWA, EPA believes that prompt
unpletnentation of this rule is very
important.
However, consistent with APR
requirements. if EPA does receive
significant adverse or critical comment.
EPA will withdraw this rule prior to its
effective date and proceed with a
normal rulemaking process. As a result.
elsewhere in today’s Federal Register.
EPA is also proposing this rule. If EPA
decides to withdraw the direct final rule
based on public comment. EPA will
proceed with rulemaking based on this
proposal. There will not be an
additional comment period, so parties
interested i.n commenting on the
proposed rule should do so at this time
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 122
Administrative practice and
procedure. Confidential business
information. Hazardous substances.
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Water pollution control.
40 CFR Part 124
Administrative practice and
procedure. Air pollution control.
Hazardous waste, Indian lands,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Water pollution control,
Water supply.
Dated: March 29. 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in this
preamble. parts 122 and 124 of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations are
amended as follows:
PART 122—CAMENOEDI
1, The authority citation for part 122
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C 125%
et seq.
2. Section 122.21 is amended by
adding a sentence to the end of
paragraph (c)(I) to read as follows:
4 122.21 ApplIcation for a permit
(applicable to State programs, see §123.251.
Cc) Time to apply
(1)’ • New discharges composed
entirely of storm water, other than those
dischargers identified by § 122.26(a)U).
shall apply for and obtain a permit
according to the application
requirements in § 122.26(g).
3. Section 122.26 is amended as
follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(1) introductory text
by revising “October 1. 1992” to read
“October 1. 1994”
b. By adding paragraph (a)(9) as set
forth below.
c. By revising the title of paragraph (e)
introductory text as set forth below:
d. In paragraph (e)(1)(ii) by revising
the phrase “permit applications
requirements are reserved” to read
“permit application requirements are
contained in paragraph (g) of this
section”
e. By adding paragraph (g) as set forth
below.
§ 122.26 Storm water dlsctiarges
(applicabl, to State NPOES programs, see
§123.25).
(a)
(9) On and after October 1, 1994.
discharges composed enurely of storm
water, that are not otherwise already
required by paragraph (a)(1) of this
section to obtain a permit, shall be
required to apply for and obtain a
permit according to the application
requirements in paragraph (g) of this
section. The Director may not require a
permit for discharges of storm water as
provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section or agricultural storm water
runoff which is exempted from the
definition of point source at § 122 2
and 122.3.
• a a a a
Ce) Application deadlines under
paragraph (a)(1). a •
(g) Application requirements for
discharges composed entirely of storm
water under Clean Water Act section
40 2 (p)( 6 ). Any operator of a point
source required to obtain a permit under
paragraph (a)(9) of this section shall
submit an application in accordance
with the following requirements.
(1) Application deadlines. The
operator shall submit an application in
accordance with the following
deadlines:
Ci) A discharge which the Director
determines to contribute to a violation
of a water quality standard or is a
significant contributor of pollutants to
waters of the United States shall apply
for a permit to the Director within 180
days of receipt of notice, unless
permission for a later date is granted by
the Director (see 40 CFR 124.52(c)), or
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 67 / Friday. April 7. 1995 / Rules and Regulations
17957
(ii) All other discharges shall apply to
the Director no later then August 2.
2001.
(2) Application requirements. The
operator shall submit an application in
accordance with the following
requirements, unless otherwise
modified by the Director
(1) Individual application for non.
municipal discharges. The requirements
contained in paragraph (CIII) of this
section.
(ii) Application requirements/or
municipal separate storm sewer
discharges. The requirements contained
in paragraph (dJ of this section.
(iii) Notice of intent to be covered by
a general permit issued by the Director.
The requirements contained in 40 CFR
122.28(b)(2).
PART 124—(AMENDEOJ
4. The authority citation for part 124
continues to read as follows:
Authority Resource Conservation and
Recovely Act. 42 U.S.C 3901 et seq.: Safe
Drinking Water Act. 42 U.S.C 300(f) ci seq.;
clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C 1251 ci seq.:
Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C 7401 ci seq.
5. Section 124.52 is amended by
revising the parenthetical statement in
paragraph (c i to read as follows:
§ 124 .52 Permits required on a casiby .
cas. basis.
. . S S a
(ci • (see 40 CFR 122.26 (a)(1)(v).
(c)(1J(v). and (g)(1)(i))
6. Section 124.52 is amended by
revising the next to the last sentence in
paragraph Ic) to read as follows:
§ 124.52 Permits required en a cass’by”
ansi basis.
S S a • a
(c) ‘ The discharger must apply
for a permit under 40 CFR 122.26
(aJ(1)(v) and (c)(l)(v) within 60 days of
notice or under 40 CFR 122.26(g)(l)(i)
within 180 days of notice, unless
permission for a later date is granted by
the Regional Administrator.
(FR Doc. 95—8209 Filed 4—6—95; 3:45 aml
SLUNG C1
-------
17958
Federal Register / Vol. 60. 4o. 67 / Friday. April 7. 1995 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 122 and 124
(FRL-6182-eJ
RUN 2O O-AC8O
Amendment to Requirements for
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permits
for Storm Water DIscharges Under
Section 402(p)(6) of the Clean Water
Act
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AC11ON: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: Today. EPA is proposing
changes to its National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
storm water permit application
regulations under the Clean Water Act
(CWA) to establish a sequential
application process for all phase II
storm water discharges. EPA is also
proposing to establish application
requirements for these discharges. as
well as making other conforming
changes to other portions of its NPDES
regulations. in the final rules section of
this Federal Register. the Agency is
promulgating these changes as a
“direct” final rule because the Agency
does not expect significant adverse or
a ttical comments and wants to provide
prompt implementation of the rule as
soon as possible to provuje for certainty
for phase II storm water dischargers: the
Agency also believes it is contrary to the
public interest to further delay the
establbhment of permit application
requirements for phase (I storm water
discharges at this time. This proposal
invites comment on the substance of the
direct final rule in the “final rules”
section of today’s Federal Register
0ATE Comments on this proposed rule
must be received in writing by June 6.
1995.
ADORESSES: Written comments on this
proposed rule may be submitted using
one of two different methods.
First, comments may be sent to the
Comment Clerk. Water Docket (Storm
Water Phase II Proposed Rule). MC- ’
4101. Environmental Protection Agency.
401 M Street. SW, Washington DC
20460. It is requested that an original
and one copy of the comments be
provided to this address. Comments will
considered to be timely if they are
postmarked by June 6. 1995.
Commenters who would like
acknowledgement of receipt of their
comments should include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope. No
facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
In the alternative. EPA will accept
comments electronically; EPA is
experimenting with electromc
commenting. Comments should be
addressed to the following Internet
address: SWPH2—DFR@epamail.epa.gov.
Electronic comments must be submitted
as an ASCII file avoiding the use of
special characters and any form of
encryption. Electronic comments will be
transferred into a paper version rot the
official record. EPA will attempt to
clarify electronic comments if there is
an apparent error in transmission.
Comments provided electronically will
be considered timely if they are
submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m.
(Eastern time) June 6. 1995. Since this
is still experimental. commenters may
want to submit both electronic
comments and duplicate paper
comments. This document has also bee
placed on the Internet for public revie%%
and downloading at the following
location: gopher.epa.gov.
A copy of the supporting information
for this rule is available for review at
EPA’s Water Docket. Room L—102. 401
M Street. SW. Washington, DC 20460.
For access to the docket materials, call
(202) 260—3027 between 9 a.m. and 3:31
p.m. (Eastern time) for an appoinunent.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy Cunningham. Offlce of
Wastewater Management, Permits
Division (4203), Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M Street. SW.
Washington. DC 20460. (202) 250—953
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATiON: See the
information provided in the direct final
action which is located in the rules
section of this Federal Register.
Dated: March 29. 1995.
Carol M. Browner.
Admsnisbvtor.
IFR Doc. 95—8210 Filed 4-6—95; 8:45 ami
- -• cone ==r
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7. 1995 / Notices
12555
(FRL-6 165 —7 )
Notice ot Meetings, Open to the Public,
of the Multi-Agency Radiation Site
Investigation Manual Development
Working Group
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency, lead.
ACTiON: Meetings open to the public .
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is announcing that the
Department of Defense, Department of
Energy. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission are meeting to develop
loint Federal guidance for standardized
and consistent approaches to
accomplish structural and
environmental radiation surveys.
Relevant information will be provided
to the group by other persons present.
The guidance is being developed as a
draft document, entitled the “Multi-
Agency Radiation Site Investigation
Manual (MARSIM)”, and it is
anticipated that the final product will be
a consensus document each agency can
agree upon and eventually adopt.
Meetings of the group are open to the
public on a first come, space available
basis with advance registration. Dunng
the next meeting, representatives of the
agencies will discuss: survey planning
and design; implications of minimum
detectable activity; application of
statistics: and the schedule of future
meetings.
DATES, ADDRESSES, AND REGISTRATION: A
meeting will be held on Tuesday, March
28. 1995 from 9:00 am until about 3:00
pm. The meeting will be held at the
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2
White Flint North. Room T—IOA1,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD.
Persons wishing to attend this meeting
contact Roberta Cordon at (301) 415—
7555 to register. A future meeting is
tentatively scheduled for April 27, 1995.
The schedule, location, and registration
information for future meetings will be
posted on the Ii. S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission Enhanced Participatory
Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for
Decommissioning Electronic Bulletin
Board. (800) 880—6091; the NRC Public
Meeting Announcement System by
electronic bulletin board at (800) 952—
9676 or by recording at (800) 952—9674;
the EPA Cleanup Regulation Electronic
Bulletin Board at (800) 700—7837
outside the Washington area and (703)
790—0825 locally; and the RCRA/
Superfund Hotline at (800) 424—9346
outside the Washington area, (703) 412—
9810 locally, or by TOO at (8001 553—
7672.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Persons needing further information
concerning this group and the work of
developing the Multi.Agencv Radiation
Site investigation Manual should
contact Colleen Petullo, U S.
Environmental Protection Agency/
ORIA. P0 Box 98517. Las Vegas. NV
89193—8517, (702) 798—2446
Dated March 1. 1995
Nicholas Lailas.
Chief. Radiation Assessment Bmnch. EPA
Office of Radiation and Indoor .4 , ,
IFR Doc. 95—5521 Filed ]—6—95. 8 45 am)
GILUNG COO! I610-IG.P
(FRL-6166-6J
Modification of General Administrative
Compliance Order for Produced Water
Discharges Covered by NPOES
General Permits for Produced Water
and Produced Sand Discharges From
the Oil and Gas Extraction Point
Source Category to Coastal Waters in
Louisiana (LAG290000) and Texas
(TXG290000)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency. Region 6.
ACTION: Modification of General
Adnunistrative Compliance Order .
SUMMARY: Region 6 of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
today modifies the General
Administrative Compliance Order that
was issued Januãiy 9. 1995. at 60 FR
2393. This Order is modified to add as
respondents to the Order those
peimittees subject to General NPDES
Permit Nos. LAG290000 and
TXG290000 who discharge produced
water from new Coastal. Stripper or
Offshore Subcategory wells to “coastal”
waters of Texas or Louisiana which will
be spudded after the effective date of
NPDES permits LAG290000 and
TXG290000 and which discharge
produced water through existing
facilities that are required by this Order
to cease produced water discharges no
later than January 1. 1997.
DATES: The General Administrative
Compliance Order will become effective
on March 7. 1995.
ADDRESSES: Notifications required by
this Order should be sent to the Water
Management Division. Enforcement
Branch (6W—EA). EPA Region 6 P.O.
Box 50625. Dallas. Texas 75202.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Ellen Caidwell. EPA Region 6. 1445
Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202;
telephone: (214) 665—7513.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
General Administrative Compliance
Order being modified today was
originally issued January 9. 1995 .nd
published in the Federal Register at r 0
FR 2393 with an effective date of
February 8. 1995. After the Order vas
issued, the Region received inforniation
that a number of new wells are planned
to be drilled in the near future in
existing fields in Louisiana and Texas
The discharge of produced water
associated with these new wells is nut
currently covered by the Order These
wells are ones which will discharge
their produced water through existing
treatment/discharge facilities that are
required by the Order to cease disrharge
of produced water no later than Ianuar
1,1997. Individual wells of this type
cannot normally justify a separate
inlection well for a single production
well. If the Order was not modified. it
was claimed that oil and gas drillir.g n
coastal Louisiana and Texas woi:Id he
delayed until the planned inlection
facilities are in place. which in some
cases may be nearly 2 years. The Region
has agreed to modify the Order to ailow
coverage of produced water discharges
from those new wells.
Those permittees who have already
submitted an “Administrative Order
Notice” in connection with the General
Administrative Compliance Order
issued January 9, 1995 do not ne ’ci to
resubmit an Administrative Order
Notice to be covered by today’s
modified Order.
United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6 in Re: NPDES Permit
Nos, LAG29000 0 and TXG290000
General Administrative Compliance
Order
The following Findings are made and
Order issued pursuant to the authority
vested in the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
by Section 309(a)(3) of the Clean Water
Act (hereinafter “the Act”). 33 u.s_C.
1319(a)(3), and duly delegated to the
Regional Administrator. Region 6. and
duly redelegated to the undersigned
Director. Water Management Division.
Region 6. Failure to comply with the
interim requirements established in this
ORDER constitutes a violation of this
ORDER and the NPDES permits.
Findings
I
The term “waters of the United
States” is defined at 40 C.F R. 122.2.
The term “coastal” is defined in NFDES
Permits LAG290000 and TXG290000
and includes facilities which would he
considered “Onshore” but for the
decision in API v. EPA 661 F 2 340 (5th
Cir, 1981). The term “existing well”
-------
12556
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 44 I Tuesday. March?. 1995. I NotiCes
means a well spudded prior’to the
effective date of NPDES Permits
LAG290000 and TXG290000. The term
“new well” means a well spudded after
the effective date of NPDES Permits
LAG290000 and TXG290000 whose
associated produced water will be
discharged through an existing
treatment/discharge fact lily required by
this Order to cease discharge of
produced water no later than January 1.
1997
II
Pursuant to the authority of Section
4021a)(1) of the Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1342.
Region 6 issued National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permits No. LAG290000 and
TXG290000 with an effective date of
February 8. 1995. These permits
prohibit the discharge of produced
water and produced sand derived from
Oil and Gas Point Source Category
raciuties to “coastal” waters of
Louisiana and Texas in accordance with
effluent limitations and other conditions
set forth in Parts I and II of these
permits. Facilities covered by these
permits u cIude those in the Coastal
Subcategory (40 CFR 435. Subpart 0).
the Stripper Subcategory (40 CFR 435.
Subpart F) that discharge to “coastal”
waters of Louisiana and Texas. and the
Offshore Subcategory (40 CFR 435.
Subpart A) which discharge to ‘coaster
waters of Louisiana an l Texas.
III
Respondents herein are permittees
sub ject to General NPDES Permit Nos.
LAG290000 and/or TXG290000 and
who:
A. Discharge produced water derived
from an existing Coastal. Stripper or
Offshore Subcategory well or wells to
“coastal” waters of Texas or Louisiana.
or will discharge produced water
derived from a new Coastal. Stripper or
Offshore Subcatagory well or wells to
“coastal” waters of Texas or Louisiana.
B. Discharge produced water derived
front an existing Coastal Subcetegory
well or wells located in Louisiana or
Texas to waters of the United States
outside Louisiana or Texas “ccastal
waters, or will discharge produced
water derived from a new Coastal
Subcategory well or wells located in
Louisiana or Texas to waters of the
United States outside Louisiana or
Texas “coastal” waters.
C. Are required by Permits No.
LAG290000 or TXG290000 to meet the
requirement of No Discharge of
produced water and are taking
affirmative steps to meet that
rrfliiiremnnt
0. Have submitted an “Administrative
Order Notice”. Such Notices shall be
sent to: Enforcement Branch (6W—EA).
Region 6. U.S. Environmental Protection
‘Agency. P.O. Box 50625. Dallas. TX
75270. Upon submission of such an
Administrative Order Notice, a
permittee shall be a Respondent under
this General Administrauve Order. The
terms of each Administrative Order
Notice submitted shall be considered
terms of this Order and shall be
enforceable against the Respondent
submitting the Administrative Order
Notice. Each Administrative Order
Notice must include:
1. Identification of the facility by
name and its location (by lease, lease
block, field or prospect name). the name
and address of its operator, and the
name, address and telephone number of
a contact person.
2. A certification signed by a person
meeting the requirements of Part II.
Section 0.9 (Signatory Requirements) of
Permits LAGZ90000 and TXG290000
stating that a Compliance Plan has been
prepared for the facility in accordance
with this Order. A copy of this plan
shall not be included with the
Administrative Order Notice. but shall
be made available to A upon request.
3. A Compliance Plan shall include a
description of the measures to be taken.
along with a schedule. to cease
discharge of produced water to waters of
the United States as expeditiously as
possible.
I v
To maintain oil and gas production
and comply with the permits’
prohibition on the discharge of
produced water, a significant number of
Respondents will have to reiniect their
produced water. A lack of access to the
finite numberof existing Class II
disposal wells, state tJIC permit writers,
and drilling contractors may cause non.
compliance for a significant number of
Respondents. In addition. time will be
required for some Respondents to
reroute produced water collection lines
to transport the produced water to
injection wells.
V
Respondents may reasonably perform
all actions necessary to cease their
discharges of produced water no later
than January 1. 1997.
V I
For new wells as defined by this
ORDER, coverage under this ORDER
shall begin immediately after the
discharge of the associated produced
water begins.
Order
Based on the foregoing Findings. it is•
ordered That Respondents:
A. Fully comply with all conditions of
NPDES Permits No. LAG290000 and
TXG290000 except for the prohibition
on the discharge of produced water and
except for the requirement that all
discharges of produced waler he
reported within twenty-four hours.
B. Complete all activities necessary to
attain full and Continuous compliance
with NPDES Permits No. LAG290000
and TXG290000 as soon as possible. but
in no case later than January 1. 1997.
C. Operate and maintain all existing
pollution control equipment. including
existing oil/water separation equipment.
in such a manner as to minimize the
discharge of pollutants contained in
produced water at all times until such
time as respondents cease their
discharges of produced water.
D. Submit notice to the Water
Enforcement Branch of EPA Region 6
when produced water discharges subiect
to this Order have ceased.
E. Subject to NPDES Permit
LAC290000 comply at all times with
Part!. Section C.1.b of said permit.
requiring that Respondents meet any
more stringent requirements contained
In Louisiana Water Quality Regulation.
LAC 33jX.7.708.
Nothing herein shall preclude
additional enforcement action.
The effective date of this ORDER shall
be March 7. 1995.
Dated: Febniarv 24. 1995.
Myron 0. Knudsen,
Director. Water Management Division 16W?
(FR D cc. 95-5519 FlIed 3-6—95. 8:45 aml
nt en cosa . aw
EXPORT-IMPORT BANK
(Public Nolice 231
Agency Forms Submitted for 0MB
Review
AGENCY: Export-Import Bank,
ACTiON: In accordance with the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980, Eximbank has submitted a
proposed collection of information in
the form of a survey to the Office of
Management and Budget for review .
PURPOSE: The proposed Export-Import
Bank Questionnaire of City/State
Partners to exporters and bank.s is to be
completed by U.S. banks and exporters
familiar with Eximbanks programs as a
means of providing an evaluation of the
effectiveness. utility, strengths and
weaknes.cos of. and means to improve
-------
5390
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 18 I Friday. ariuarv 27.1995 / Notices
requested that EPA designate an
ODMUS offshore Port Everglades.
Florida for the disposal of dredged
inatenal from the Port Everglades area
when ocean disposal is the preferred
disposal alternative. An EIS is required
to provide the necessary information to
evaluate alternatives and designate the
preferred ODMDS.
Alternatives
1. No action. The no action alternative
is defined as not designating an ocean
disposal site.
2. Alternative disposal sites in the
nearshore. and shelf break regions.
Scoping
A scoping meeting is not
contemplated. Scoping will be
accomplished through contact with
affected Federal. State and local
agencies, and with anticipated
interested parties.
Estimated Date of Release
The Draft EIS will be made available
in January 1997
Responsible Official
John H. Haxikinson. Jr. Regional
Administer. Region IV.
Richard E. Sanderson.
Director. Office of Federei Activities.
(FR Doc. 95—2088 Filed 1—26—95. 8:45 ami
S4WNO COOS sass-so-a
(FRL-6144 —6 l
State Program Requirements:
Application to Administer the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Program; Flonda
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency
AC ’flOP4: Public notice of application br
NPDES program approval .
SUMMARY: The State of Florida has
submitted a request to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
for approval to administer the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program for regulating
discharges of pollutants into waters of
the State of Flonda. The NPDES
program would be administered by the
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FOEP). FDEP has requested
a phased NPDES program encompassing
permitting for: (1) Domestic discharges;
(2) industrial discharges. including
those which also have storm water
discharges: and (3) pretreatment. Storm
water discharges from municipal
separate storm sewer systems (MS4’s).
individual storm water-only discharges.
storm water general permits. and federal
facility dischargers are to be phased in
by the year 2000 for administration by
the State. This notice provides for
public hearing and a comment period
on Florida’s request. Under EPA
regulations. Regional Administrators
will approve or disapprove this request
after taking into consideration all
comments received.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before March 13. 1995. Public
hearings have been scheduled for
March 7. 1995. 10 a.m.—1 p.m. and 7
p rn.—10 p.m., Civic Convention
Center. 9800 International Dnve.
Orlando, Florida 32819. Orange
County
March 9. 1995. 10 a.m.—1 p.m. and 7
p.m.—10 p m.. Leon County Civic
Center. 505 W. Pensacola Street.
Tallahassee, Florida 32301. Leon
County
Part or all of the submittal (which
comprises approximately 1500 pages)
may be copied at any FDEP office, or
EPA office in Atlanta. at a minimal cost
per page. A copy of the enirre submittal
may be obtained from the FDEP office
in Tallahassee for a fee.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Dee Stewart. Environmental Engineer.
Permits Section. U.S. EPA Region IV.
345 Court!ar.d Street. NE.. Atlanta.
Georgia. 30365, 404/347—3012. ext.
2928. or Mi. Daryll Joyner. FDEP. Suite
202. Twin Towers Office Building. 2600
Blair Stone Road. Tallahassee. Florida.
32301. 904/488—4520.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
402 of the Federal Clean Water Act (Act)
created the NPDES program under
which the Administrator of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) may issue permits for the
discharge of pollutants into waters of
the United States under conditions
required by the Act. The Act also
provides that a State may be authorized
to administer the NPDES program upon
request and showing that the State has
authority and a program sufficient to
meet requirements of the Act. The
Governor of Florida has requested
NPDES program approval and on
November 21, 1994, submitted a
complete program description
(including funding. personnel
requirements and organization. and
enforcement procedures). an
Independent Counsel’s statement.
copies of applicable State statutes and
regulations. and a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) to be executed by the
EPA. Region IV. Regional Administrator.
and the Secretary. FDEP The EPA
Regional Administrator is required to
approve the submitted program within
qo days of submittal unless it does not
meet the requirements of section 40(b)
of the Act and EPA regulations. which
indude, aninng other things. authority
to issue permits which comply with the
Act, authority to impose civil and
criminal penalties for permit violations.
and authority to ensure that the public
is given notice and opportunity for a
hearing on each proposed NPDES
permit issuance. At the close of the
comment period (including the public
hearing), the EPA Regional
Administrator will decide to approt e or
disapprove Florida’s NPDES program. In
accordance with EPA regulations. EP
and FDEP hive agreed to extend the
review period beyond the ninety (90)
day statutory period until April 30.
1995.
The decision to approve or
disapprove Florida’s NPDES program
will be based on the requirements of
section 402 of the C%VA and 40 CFR P .-j
123. If the Florida NPDES program is
approved, the EPA Regional
Administrator will so notify the State
Notice will be published in the Federal
Register and, as of the date of prog ar
approval. EPA will suspend issuance or
NPDES permits in Florida. except or
federal facilities, municipal separate
storm sawer systems. storm water
general permits. and individual storm
water permits. until FDEP assumes
permitting and enforcement authori’rec
for these categories in the year 2000.
The State’s program will implement
federal law and operate in lieu of the
EPA administered program. However
EPA will retain the right to object to
NPDES permits proposed to be issueo
by the FDEP. lithe EPA Regional
Administrator disapproves Florida s
NPDES program. the Regional
Administrator will notify the FOE? of
the reasons for disapproval and of any
revisions or modification to the program
which are necessary to obtain approval
The Florida submittal may be
reviewed during normal business hours
Monday through Friday. excluding
holidays. by the public at the Florida
FDEP and EPA offices at the address
appearing earlier in this Notice and at
the following FDEP District offices
Northwest District Office. 160
Governmental Center. Pensacola.
Florida, 32501—5794; Southwest
District. 3804 Coconut Palm Drive.
Tampa. Florida. 33619—8218; Northeast
District, 7825 Baymeadows Was’. Suite
200B. Jacksonville. Flonda, 32256—
7577, Central District. 3319 Maguire
Blvd.. Suite 232, Orlando, Florida.
32803—3767, South District, 2295
Victoria Ave.. Suite 364. Fort M era.
Florida. 33901. and the Southeast
District. 1900 S. Congress Ave. Suite .
We..t Palm Beach. Flonda. 3340R
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 18 I Friday. January 27, 1995 / Notices
5391
Public hearings to consider Florida’s
request to administer the NPOES permit
program have been scheduled as shown
at the beginning of this Notice. The
Heanng Panel will include
representatives of EPA Region IV and
the Florida FDEP.
The following are policies and
procedures which shall be observed at
the public hearings:
1. The Presiding Officer shall conduct
the hearing in a manner which will
allow all interested persons wishing to
make oral statements an opportunity to
do so: however; the Presiding Officer
may inform attendees of any time limits
during the opening statement of the
hearings.
2. Any person may submit written
statements or documents for the record.
3. The Presiding Officer may. in his
discretion, exclude oral testimony if
such testimony is overly repetitious of
previous testimony or is not relevant to
the decision to approve or require
revision of the submitted State program.
4. The transcript taken at the hearing.
together with copies of all submitted
statements and documents, shall
become a part of the record submitted
to the Regional Adminktrator.
5. The hearing record shall be left
open until the deadline for receipt of
comments specified at the beginning of
this Notice to allow any person time to
submit additional written statement or
to present views or evidence tending to
rebut testimony presented at the public
hearing.
Hearing statements may be oral or
written. Written copies of oral
statements are urged for accuracy of the
record and for use of the Hearing Panel
and other interested persons. Statements
should summarize any extensive written
materials. All comments received by
EPA Region IV by the deadline for
receipt of comments, or presented at the
public hearing, will be considered by
EPA before taking final action on the
Florida request for NPDES program
approval.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
After review of the facts presented in
his document. I hereby certify.
pursuant to the provisions of S U.S.C.
R05(b). that this notice of Florida’s
application to administer the NPDES
program will not have a significant
Impact on a substantial number of small
Dnlities. The approval of the Florida
NPDES permit program would merely
transfer responsibilities for
administration of the NPDES permit
program from Federal to State
government.
Patrick M. Tobin.
Acting Regional Adrninistmtor.
IFR Dec. 95—1862 Filed 1—26-95:8:45 ami
SILUNO DI S5Io-60.D
FEDERAL MARITiME COMMISSION
Agreement(s) Filed
The Federal Maritime Commission
hereby gives notice of the filing of the
following agreement(s) pursuant to
section 5 of the Shipping Act of 1984.
Interested parties may inspect and
obtain a copy of each agreement at the
Washington. D.C. Office of the Federal
Maritime Commission. 800 North
Capitol Street. N.W.. 9th Floor.
Interested parties may submit comments
on each agreement to the Secretary.
Federal Maritime Commission.’
Washington. D.C. 20573. withinlO days
after the date of the Federal Register in
which this notice appears. The
requirements for comments are found in
§ 572.603 of Title 46 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. Interested persons
should consult this section before
communicating with the Commission
regarding a pending agreement.
Agreement No.: 232—011321-003.
Title: MaersklSaa.Land Pacific
Agreement
Parties:
A.P. Moller-Maersk Line
Sea-Land Service. Inc.
Synopsis: The proposed amendment
revises Article 9.3—Duration and
Termination by reducing the notice
period required for withdrawal from the
Agreement.
Agreement No.: 203—011487.
Title: The ‘8900,’ Lines/APL
Discussion Agreement.
Parties;
“8900’ Lines Agreement
American President Lines. Ltd.
Synopsis: The proposed Agreement
permits the partleit to meet, discuss their
separate tariffs. tales, service items.
rules and service c:ontzects in the trade
from all United States ports and points
to all ports and points in Bahrain. Iran.
Iraq. Kuwait, Oman. Qatar. Saudi
Arabia, the United Arab Emirates.
Jordan and Yemen. Adherence to any
such agreement reached is voluntary.
Agreement No.: 224—200555—003.
Title: Jacksonville Port Authority/
Allen Freight Trailer Bridge. Inc.
Terminal Agreement.
Parties:
Jacksonville Port Authority
Allen Freight Trailer Bridge. Inc.
Synopsis: The proposed amendment
provides for the annual rate increase to
the Agreement.
By Order of the Federal Maritime
Commission.
Dated: January 24. 1995.
Joseph C. Polking.
Secretaiy.
IFR Doc. 95—2043 Filed 1—26—95:8:45 ami
UILUNO COOS 8730-el- I d
FEDERAL MEDIATION AND
CONCIUATION SERVICE
Labor-Management Cooperation
Program; Application Solicitation
AGENCY: Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service.
ACTION: Publication of final Fiscal Year
1995 Program Guidelines/Application
Solicitation for Labor-Management
Committees.
SUMMARY: The Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service (FMCS) is
publishing the final Fiscal Year 1995
Program Guidelines/Application
Solicitation for the Labor-Management
Cooperation program to inform the
public. The program is supported by
Federal funds authorized by the Labor-
Management Cooperation Act of 1978.
subject to annual appropriations. No
comments were received from the
public.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peter L. Regner. 202—606—6181.
Labor-Management Cooperation
Program Application Solicitation lhr
Labor-Management Committees FY
1995
A. Iniroduction
The following is the final solicitation
for the Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 cycle of
the Labor-Management Cooperation
Program as it pertains to the support of
labor-management committees. These
guidelines represent the continuing
efforts of the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service to implement the
provisions of the Labor-Management
Cooperation Act of 1978 which was
initially implemented In FY81. The Act
generally authorizes FMCS to provide
assistance in the establishment and
operation of plant, area, public sector.
and industry-wide labor-management
committees which:
(A)jiave been organized jointly by
employers and labor organizations
representing employees in that plant.
area, government agency. or industry:
and
(B) are established for the purpose of
improving labor-management
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 5 I Monday. January 9, 1995 I Notices
2387
t
dioactively contaminated sites. for
odeling transport to people. and for
estimating risk to individuals and
populations acceptable for providing a
technical basis for writing a cleanup
standard?
(2a) Are the assumptions for the
combined residential/agricultural land
use s enario. and the pathways model.
reasonable and suitable for assessing
risk at radioactively contaminated sites?
(2b) Are the assumptions for the
combined industnal/commercial land
use scenario, and the pathways model.
reasonable and suitable for assessing
risk at radioactively contaminated sites?
(3) Is RESRAD version 5.01 (specific
reference to RESRAD may be omitted)
suitable for modeling radiation risk to
individuals at radioactively
contaminated sites’
To Obtain More Information on or
Participate in this SAB Meeting:
Members of the public who wish to
make a brief oral presentation at this
meeting should contact Dr.
Kooyoomjian rio lacer than January 18.
1995 in order to have time reserved on
the agenda. Please contact Dr. K. Jack
Kooyoomjian. the Designated Federal
Official. Science Advisory Board (Mail
Code 1400F). US EPA, 401 M Street.
‘W, Washington DC G460. by
elephonè at (202) 260—6552. FAX at
(202) 260—7118. or via the INTERNET
at:
Kooyoomiian jack@EPAMAIL.EP&COV
In order to obtain a copy of the draft
agenda. please contact Ms. Diana L.
Pozun. Secretary. Science Advisory
Board. at the above address.
Providing Oral or Written Comments at
SAB Meetings
The Science Advisory Board expects
that public statements presented at its
meetings will not be repetitive of
previously submitted oral or written
statements. In general. opportunities for
oral comment at meetings will be
usually limited to five minutes per
speaker and no more than thirty
minutes total. Wntten comments (at
least 15 copies) received in the SAB
Staff Office sufficiently prior to a
meeting date (usually one week prior to
a meeting). may be mailed to the
subcommittee prior to its meeting.
comments received too close to the
meeting date will normally be provided
to the subcommittee at its meeting.
Written comments may be provided up
until the time of the meeting.
Dated. December 20. 1994
A. Robert Flaak.
Acting Sio/f D,re ’ctor. Science Advs:.ory Board
IFR Doc 95—418 Filed 1-6-95.845 aml
BILUMG CODE I5I*-’ 4
(FRL - .8133 —lj
Final NPOES General Permits for
Produced Water and Produced Sand
Discharges From the Oil and Gas
Extraction Point Source Category to
Coastal Waters In Louisiana
(LAG290000) and Texas (TXG290000)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency. Region 6.
ACTION: Issuance of Final NPDES
Permits.
SUMMARY: Region 6 of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
today issues final NPDES General
Permits regulating discharges of
produced water and produced sand
derived from oil and gas point source
facilities. The permits prohibit the
discharge of produced water and
produced sand derived from Coastal
Subcategory (40 CFR part 435. subpart
D) to any water subject to EPA
jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
Discharges to ‘ coastal” waters of
Louisiana and Texas of produced water
and produced sand derived from most
Stripper Subcategory (40 CFR part 435.
subpart F) and all Offshore Subcategory
(40 CFR part 435. subpart A) facilities
covered by these permits are prohibited.
Under Permit TXGZ90000. Stripper
Subcategory facilities located east of the
98th meridian whose produced water is
derived from the Carrizo/Wilcox.
Rekiaw or Bartosh formations in Texas
and whose produced water does not
exceed 3000 mg/I Total Dissolved Solids
may discharge produced water subject
to effluent limitations on oil and grease
of 25 mg/I monthly average and 35 mg /
I daily maximum. TXGZ90000 prohibits
the discharge of produced sand derived
from those facilities. Produced water
derived from Stripper Subcategory and
Offshore Subcategory wells which
discharge to the main deltaic passes of
the Mississippi River or to the
Atchafalaya River below Morgan City
including Wax Lake Outlet, are not
covered by Permit No. LAC200000. but
may be regulated in future NPDES
permitting actions. Permittees include
commercial disposal facilities as well as
oil and gas operators generating
produced water and sand
Region 6 is also issuing an
administrative order requiring
permittees discharging produced water
from existing Coastal. Stripper or
Offshore Si&bcategory wells which must
meet the No Discharge requirement for
produced water to meet that
requirement no later than January I.
1997 unless an earlier compliance ilate
is required by the State
DATES: These permits will become
effective on February 8. 1995.
ADDRESSES: Notifications required by
these permits should be sent to the
Water Management Division.
Enforcemeht Branch (6W .-EA), EPA
Region 6. P 0 Box 50625. Dallas, Texas
75202.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION: Contact Ms.
Ellen Caldwell. EPA Region 6, 1445
Ross Avenue. Dallas. Texas 75202:
telephone: (214) 665 7513.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA
issues these general permits pursuant to
its authority under Section 402 of the
Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. 1342. These
permits cover discharges of produced
water and produced sand derived from
Oil and Gas Point Source Category
Facilities to coastal waters of Louisiana
and Texas. Discharges regulated by
these permits include those from
Coastal Subcategory (40 CFR part 435.
subpart Di facilities in Louisiana and
Texas. discharges from the Stripper
Subcategory (40 CFR part 435, subpart
F) that discharge to coastal waters of
Lowsiana and Texas. and discharges
from some Offshore Subcategory (40
CFR part 435. subpart A) to coastal
waters of Louisiana and Texas. These
permits do not authorize discharges
from ‘ new sources” as defined in 40
CFR 122.2.
Public notice of the draft permits was
published in the Federal Register on
December 22. 1992 (57 FR 60926) and
in the Houston Post and New Orleans
Times Picayune on January 9. 1993. As
then announced, the comment period
was to close on February, 9, 1993. but
Region 6 subsequently extended it to
March 15. 1993 because of numerous
telephone and written requests for
additional time. (57 FR 5968. February
3, 1993) Region 6 considered all
comments it received in formulating the
final permits. The Region has prepared
a detailed Response to Comments, but is
not publishing it in this Federal
Register notice for practical reasons. A
copy may be obtained from Ms.
Caidwell at the address supplied above
EPA Region 6 made a number of
changes to the permits as a result of
comments. Under Permit No.
TXG290000. facilities in the Stripper
Subcategorv located east of the 98th
meridian whose produced water comes
from the Carrizo/Wilcox. Reklaw or
Bartosh formations in Texas and whose
produced water does not exceed 3000
mg/I Total Dissolved Solids are allowed
to discharge produced water subject to
an effluent limitation of 3000 mg/I for
Total Dissoh.ed Solids and oil and
grease limits of 25 mg/I monthly a er
and 35 mg/I dail ’ maximum. Associ . I
-------
Feduaf Register! VoL 60. No. 5 I Mendav, January 9. 1995 I Noti
changes to the wording of Part LA and
Part I I of the pernutsieflect these
produced water discharge authrixation,
e.g.. riot of intent to be covered and.
Discharge Marntssing Reports are now
required for facilities allowed to
disr h rge. In respeme to comments on
potential ambiguities. clarifying
wording changes and additions are also
included in the final permits. Produced
witter discharges derived from Stripper
Subcategory and Offshore Subcategory
wells into the mare dahaic passes of the
M iss&ppi River. or to the Atchafalaya
River below Morgan City Including Wax
Lake Outlet, have been excluded from
coverag under Permit No. LAG290000
and may be the subject of future
regulatory actions.. These changes are
d: .cu i d in greater detail In the written
Response to Comments.
The Region iralso suing an
administrative order requiring
pernuittees dicr h rging produced water
from Pv sting Coastal. Stripper or
Offshore Subcategory wells which must
meet the No Di charge requirement for
produced water. tocomply with that
requirement no later than •
1997 unless an earlier compliance date
is required by the State. Many
discharges in Louisiana axe required to
cease soerter than January a. 1997. As
explained in the Fact Sheet for the Draft
Permits. Reajon S was not required to
publish its proposed adrni.istratlvo
order nor is tim final order subject to
judicial review before its enforcement.
RegionS nevertheless solicited
comments on a draft order and
responses proved helpful in formulating
the final order.
Other Legal Requirements
A. State Ceztificsztion
Under Section 401(a) (l) of the Act.
EPA may not issue a NPDES permit
until the State in which the discharge
will occur giants or waives certification
to ensure compllanse with appropriate
requirements of the Act and State law.
The State of Louisian*. after review of’
the permit, has certified that the
Louisiana permit will cemply with
applicable state water qualfty standards
or limitationL The State of Texas has
waived certification.
B. The Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act IESAJ.
16 LJ9’. 1536. requires Federal agencies
to insure that thair actions, such as
permit issuance, are unlikely to
eopardize the continued e dsterice of
any listed endangered or threatened
species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. hr informal consultation
under ESA Section 7(a)(2). the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred.
with EPA ’s determination that issuance
of these permits is unIiJ:ely to adversety
effect any fedezally4istcid species or
designated crrtrcal habftats.
C. The Coostoi Zone Management Act
In accordance with Section 307(c)(3)
of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management
Division of Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources has reviewed NPDES
permit LAG290000 and found its
issnanor consistent with the Louisiana
Coastal Zone Management Program.
0. The Paper.vork Act
The information collection
requirements of these gcnezal permits
have been approved by 0MB under
provisionsof the Papenrork Reduction
Act. 44 U.S.C. 3501 et.seq. in prior
submissions made for the NPDES permit
program.
E. Regulatory ’ Ftenbihty Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires that federal agencies prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis for
regulations that will have a significant
impact on a suhcf nH 1 number of small
entities. The Impact on small entities
was i crii d in some detail in the Fact
Sheet (57 FR 60943) for the current
permits. Be ” e certain groups of wells
are now allowed by these final permits
to discharge preihw,d water and. for the
Loulsi ” permit. compliance with
produced water No Discharge limits will
in many cases be required by state
regulations sooner than required by this
pernuiL the impact on small entities will
be even lese than anticipated for the
proposed permits.
NPDES Pprmit LAG2 90000 and
TXG290000 are hearby issued. In
addition, the General Administrative
Order which applies to those permits is
hereby issued and apperes following
NPDES Permits LAGZ90000 and
TXG290 000.
Signed this 22nd day of December. 1994.
Myron 0. Kmrdsoe .
Director. Water Managesner.t Division. A
Region 6.
In compliance with ‘the provisions of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq: the
“Act”), these permits prohibit the
discharge of produced water and
pro 1uced sand derived from O I and
Gas Point Source Category facilities to
“coastal ’ waters of Louisiana and
Texas. as described below, in
accordance with effluent limitations and
other conditions set forth in Parts land
II. Facilities covered by these permits
include those in the Coastal Subcategor7
(40 CFR part 435. subpart D L the
Stripper Subcategovy (40 CFl part 435.
subpart F) that discharge to “coastal”
waters of Louisiana and Texas. and the
Offshore Subcategory (40 CFR part 435.
subpart A) which discharge to “coastal”
waters of Louisiana and Texas.
These permits do not app l v to “new
sources ’ as defined in 40 CFR 122.2.
These permits, except for certain
portions listed in Part 1.8.. shall become
effective February 8. 1995. and expire at
midnight on February 6.2000.
Part I
Section A. Genera! Pemut Corerage and
Notification Requirements
1. Operations Covered
a. Facilities in the Coastal
Subcategory (40 CPR part 435. subpart
D) located iii Louisiana and Texas.
Location of a Coastal Subcategory
facility is determined by the location of
the wellhead associated with that
facility.
b. Facilities in the Offshore
Subcategory (40 CFR part 435. subpart
A) and the Stripper subcategorv (40 CFR
part 435. subpart P7 which discharge to
‘coastal” waters of Louisiana or Texas.
Note that t - ’iliuies in the Stripper
Subcategory and the Offshore
Subcategory that discharge directly to a
major deltaic pass of the Mississippi
River or to the Atchafalayn River
including Wax Lake Outlet. below
Morgan City are not covered by Permit
No. LAG290000.
c. Facilities which dispose of
produced water or produced sand
derived from Coastal Subcategory
facilities located in Louisiana or Texas.
d. Facr litieswhichdisposooi
produced water or produced sand
derived frum.SbipperorOffshere
Subcategory facilities by discharge to
coastal waters of Louisiana or Texas
2. Permittees Covered.
Operators of f 1ides listed in Part
I.A.1 of these permits.
3. Notification Requirements
a. Operators of facilities whose
discharge of produced water and
produced sand Is prohibited by these
permits are automatically covered a
written notiflcatloxz of intent to be
covered by these permits is not
required.
b. Operators of facilities whose
produced water discharge is allowed
(See Part I.B.2.a of these permitsl are
required to submit a written notification
of intent to be covered by these permits.
Written notification of intent to be
covered, including the legal name and
address of the operator. the lease for
-------
Federal Register_/ Vol. 60. No. 5 / Monday. January 9. 1995 1 Notices
2389
lease block) number assigned by the
Railroad Commission of Texas or. if
none, the name commonly assigned to
the lease area, the type of facilities
located within the lease (or lease block),
the name of the formation from which
the produced water originates and the
Total Dissolved Solids concentration of
the produce water shall be submitted:
( I I For existing discharges of
produced water, within 45 days of the
effective date of this permit.
(2) For new discharges of produced
water, within fourteen days prior to the
commencement of discharge.
c. Because these permits cover only
produced water and produced sand,
discharges of other waste waters from
Coastal Subcategory wells must apply to
be covered by NPDES Permits
LAG330000 or TXG330000, which cover
the discharge of waste discharges, other
than produced water and produced
sand, from Coastal Subcategory
production (and drilling) facilities.
4. Termination of Operations
Lease (or lease block) operators shall
notify the Regional Administrator
within 60 days after the permanent
termination of discharges from their
facilities. In addition, lease (or lease
block) operators shall notify the
Regional Administrator within 30 days
of any transfer of ownership.
Section 8. Application for NPDES
Individual Permit
1. Any operator authorized by this
permit may request to be excluded from
the coverage of this general permit by
applying for an individual permit. The
operator shall submit an application
together with the reasons supporting the
request to the Regional Administrator.
2. When an individual NPDES permit
is issued to an operator otherwise
sub)ect to this general permit, the
applicability of this permit to the owner
or operator is automatically terminated
on the effective date of the individual
permit.
Section C. General Permit Limits
a. Permit Conditions Applicable to
LAC29000 0
a. Prohibitions
Perrnittees shall not discharge nor
shall they cause or allow the discharge
of produced water and produced sand.
Operators of facilities generating
pollutants regulated under this permit
shall take feasonable positive steps to
assure said pollutants are not
unlawfully discharged to waters of the
United States by third parties and shall
maintain documentation of those steps
for no less than three years
b. Other Requirements
All dischargers must comply with any
more stringent requirements contained
in Louisiana Water Quality Regulations,
LAC. 33.IX.7.708.
2. Permit Conditions’Applicable to
TXG29 0000
a. Prohibitions
Permittees shall not discharge nor
shall they cause or allow the discharge
of produced water or produced sand.
Operators of facilities generating
pollutants regulated under this permit
shall take reasonable positive steps to
assure said pollutants are not
unlawfully discharged to waters of the
United States by third parties and shall
maintain documentation of those steps
for no less than three years.
Exception to prohibition on discharge
of produced water: Facilities in the
Stripper Subcategory located east of the
98th meridian whose produced water
comes from the Carrizo/Wilcox, Rekiaw
or Bartosh formations in Texas and
whose produced water does not exceed
3000 mg/I Total Dissolved Solids shall
meet the following limits and
monitoring requirements:
(1) Produced water discharges must
meet both a daily ma amum of 35
mg/I and a monthly average of 25
mg/I for oil and grease.
(2) Monitoring for oil and grease shall
- be performed once per month. The
sample type may be a grab. or a 24-hour
composite consisting of the arithmetic
average of the results of 4 grab samples
taken over a 24-hour period.
(3) Produced water flow monitoring
requirement: Once per month, an
estimate of the flow in MGD (million
gallons per day) must be made and
recorded.
Part II
(Applicable to LAGZ90000 and
TXG29 0 00 0)
Section 4. General Conditions
1. Introduction
In accordance with the provisions of
40 CFR 122.41 et. seq., this permit
jpcorporates by reference ALL
conditions and requirements applicable
to NPDES permits set forth in the Clean
Water Act, as amended (hereinafter
known as the “Act”) as well as all
applicable EPA regulations.
2. Duty To Comply
The permittee must comply with all
conditions of this permit. Any permit
non-compliance constitutes a violation
of the Clean Water Act and is grounds
for enforcement action and/or for
requiring a permittee to apply for and
obtain an individual NPDES permit.
3. Permit Flexibility
This permit may be modified, revoked
and reissued, or terminated for cause, in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.62—122.64
The filing for a permit modification.
revocation and reissuance. or
termination, or a notification of planned
changes or anticipated noncompliance.
does not stay any permit condition.
4. Property Rights
This permit does not convey any
property rights of any sort, or any
exclusive privileges nor does it
authorize any iniury to private property
or any invasion of personal rights, or
any infringement of Federal. State or
local laws or regulations.
5. Duty To Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the
Regional Administrator, Within a
reasonable time, any information which
the Regional Administrator may request
to determine whether cause exists for
modifying, revoking and reissuing, or
terminating this permit, or to determine
compliance with this permit. The
permittee shall also furnish the Regional
Administrator, upon request, copies of
records required to be kept by this
permit.
6. Crii iinal and Civil Liability
Except as provided in permit
conditions on “Bypassing’ and
“Upsets”, nothing in this permit shall
be construed to relieve the permittee
from civil or criminal penalties for
noncompliance. Any false or materially
misleading representation or
concealment of information required to
be reported by the provisions of the
permit, the Act or applicable CTR
regulations which avoids or effectively
defeats the regulatory purpose of the
Permit may subject the permittee to
crmnunal enforcement pursuant to 18
USC Section 1001.
7. Oil and Hazardous Substance
Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the institution of
any legal action or relieve the permittee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties to which the permittee may be
sub ect under Section 311 of the Clean
Water Act.
8. State Laws
Nothing in this permit shall be
construed to preclude the Institution of
any legal action or relieve the permictee
from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties established pursuant to any
-------
2390
Federal Register I Vol. 60. No 5/ Monday. anuary 9. 1995 . ! Notices -
applicable Stale law or regulation emder
authority a served by Section SIG of
the Clean Water Act.
9. Severability
The provisions of this permit are
severable, and if any provision of this
permit or the application of any
provision of this permit to any
drmnnstance is held invalid, the
application of snob provision to other
circumstances, and the remainder of
this permit. shall not be affected
thereby.
Section 8. Proper Operation and
Maintenance
1. Need To Halt or Reduce Not a
Defense
It shall not be a defense for a
permittee in an enforcement action that
it would have been necessary to halt or
reduce the permitted activity ar ordes-to
maintain compliance with the
conditions of this pesrmt.
Z. Duty To Mitigate
The permiftee shall take all
reasonable steps or prevent
any discharge in violmigm.of this permit
whidi base reasonable likelihoodol
adversely affecting human health or the
enviromP
3. Proper Operation and Mainteoa sce
The permittee shall at all times
properly operate and all
facilities and systems of u ’eanneru and. -
control (and related appurteoanc )
which are installed and used by the
perminee to achieve conipliance with
the amditioos of this permit. This
provision requires the operalioa of
backup ày awdliary facilities of similar
systems which are installed by.
pesmittee only when the operation is
n a y to achieve craapliance with
the cw - ”- of the permit.
4.BypassofFacilitfes
a. Definitions
(1) “Bypass” m va the intentional
diversion of waste streams from any
portion of a facility. —
(2) “Severe property darnagW means
substanti a) physical damage to property.
damage to the neewient facilities that
causes them to be inoperable, or
substantial and uunent lass of
natural resources than can reasonably be
expected to occur in the absence of
bypass. Severe property damage does
not mean economic loss caused by
delays in production.
b. Notice
(1) Anticipated bypass. If the
permittee knows in advance of the need
for a bypass. it shall submit prior notice.
ii peseible aa least tee days before the
date of the bypass.
(21 Unanticipated b 1 pess. The
permittee shall, within 24 hours. submit
notice of an unanticipated bypass as
required in Part 0.1 )2.
c. Prohibition of Bypass
(1) Bypass is prohibited. and the
Regional Adininistialcir may take
enforcement action agamsi a pemnttee
for bypass, unless:
(a) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent
loss of hfe personal irifury or severe
property damage.
(hi There were no fe cthfr alternatives
to the bypass,. such as the usa of
awoliary treatment facthtr s, retention
of entreated wastes, or ii r lance
during normal periods; of equipment
downtime. This condiLion is not
satisfied LI adequate beck-up equipment
should have bmn installed in the
exercise of reasonable engineering
jiidgement to prevent a bypass which
occurred dunng normal periods of
equipment dowunme or preventive
maintenance: and
(c) The peinsine. submitted notices as
required by Part ILa4.b
(2 The Repjnnai Mministratoz may
approve an Antiripaleci bypass. after
considering its adverse effects, if the
Regional Administrator determines that
it will meet the cosirlit ons listed at Part
ILB.4.c.(1).
5. Upset Conditions
a. Definition
“Upset” means an e:cceptional
inridpni in which these is unintentional
and temporary noncompliance with
technology-based effluent linntaiions
because of factors beyond the reasonable
control of the permittee. An upset does
not include noncompliance to the extent
caused by operational error. improperly
designed facilities. inalaquaw facilities.
lack of preventive maintenance’, or
careless or improper operation.
b. Effects clan Upset. An upset
constitutes an affirmative defense of an
action brought for noncompliance with
such technology-based permit effluent
limitations if the reptirernems of Part
II.B.5.c. are met. No determination mad.
during administrative review of claims
that noncompliance wris caused by
upset. and before an action for
noncompliance. is final admmistratfve
action subject to judicial review.
c. Conditions necessary for a
demonstration of upset. The permittee
who wishes to establish the affirmative
defense of upset shall demonstrate.
through properly signed.
contemporaneous 1 ogs. or other relevant
evidence’ thu’-
(i Anupsetocctnredandthatthe
perruittee can identify the came(s) of
theuDset:
(2) l’he permitted facility was at the
time being properly operated:
(31 The permittee submitted notice of
the unset as required by Part ILD.2: and
( lh. permittee complied with Part
Il.a2.
d. Burden of PtcoL In any
enforcement proceeding the perrnittee
seeking to establish the occurrence of an
upset has the burden of proof.
6. Removed Substance.
Solids. slcdges. filter badcwash. or
other poLlIlr2nr remov in the course
of treatment ow control of waste waters
shall bedispcnadof in amannpr such
as to prevent any pollution from seth
materials hem entering waters of the
United States.
Section C’. Monitoring and Records
1. Inspection and Entry
The perm.iitee shall allow the
Regional Administrator or an authonzed
representative, upon the presentation of
credentials and other documents as may
be required by law, to:
(a Enter upon the peimittee’s
premises where a regulated facility or
activity is located or conthicted.or
where records must be kept under the
conditions of this permit
(hi Have access to and copy, at
reasonable times, any records that must
be kept under the conditions of this
permit:
(C) Inspect at reasonable tithes any.
facilities, equipment (including
monitoring and control equipmentl.
practices, or operations regulated or
required under this permit: and
Idi Sample’ ormonitor at reasonable
times. farthe purposes of assuring
permit compliance or as otherwise
authorized bytbe Clean Water Act, any
substances or parameters at any
location.
2. Representative Sampling
______I__ __ I
required herein shall be representative
of the volume and nature of the
monitored discharge.
3. Retention of Records
The permittee shall retain records of
all monitoring information, including
all calibration and maintenance records
and all original strip chart Ll wding 5 for
continuous monitoring instrumentation.
and copies of all reports required by this
permit. for a period of a, least 3 years
from the date of the sampling.
measurement, or reporting. This period
may be extended by request of the
Regional Administrator at any time.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 1995 I Notices
2391
he operator shall maintain records at
development and production facilities
for 3 years. wherever practicable and at
a specific shore-based site whenever not
practicable. The operator is responsible
for maintaining records at exploratory
facilities while they are discharging
under the operator’s control and at a
specified shore-based site for the
remainder of the 3-year retention
period.
4 Record Contents
Records of monitoring information
shall include:
(a) The date, exact place. and time of
sampling or measurements.
(b) The individual(s) who performed
the sampling or measurements.
(c) The date(s) analyses were
performed.
(dl The individual(s) who performed
the analyses.
(e) The analytical techniques or
methods used, and
(I) The results of such analyses.
5 Monitoring Procedures
Monitoring must be conducted
according to test procedures approved
“rider 40 CFR Part 136. unless other test
,cedures have been specified in this
.rInit.
6. Discharge Rate/Flow Measurements
Appropriate flow measurement
devices consistent with accepted
practices shall be selected, maintained.
and used to ensure the accuracy and
reliability of measurements of the
volume of monitored discharges. The
devices shall be installed, calibrated.
and maintained to insure that the
accuracy of the measurements are
consistent with the accepted capability
of that type of device. Devices selected
shall be capable of measuring flows
with a maidmum deviation of less than
±10% from true discharge rates
throughout the range of expected
discharge volumes.
Section D. Reporting Requirements
I. Anticipated Noncompliance
The perinittee shall give advance
notice to the Regional Administrator of
any planned changes in the permitted
facility or activity which may result in
noncompliance with permit
requirements.
2. Discharge Monitoring Reports
For facilities which are allowed to
• iscbarge and for which monitoring is
required by Part I of these permits, the
operator of each lease (or lease block)
shall be responsible for submitting
monitoring results for all facilities
within that area (i.e.. lease or lease
block). The monitoring results for the
facilities within the particular lease (or
lease block) shall be summarized on the
annual Discharge Monitoring Report for
that lease (or lease block).
Monitoring results obtained during
the previous 12 months shall be
summarized and reported on a
Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR)
Form (EPA No. 3320 —i). The highest
monthly average for all activity within
each lease (or lease block) shall be
reported. The highest daily maximum
sample taken during the reporting
period shall be reported as the daily
maximum concentration. (See
“Definitions” for more detailed
explanations of these terms).
If any category of waste (discharge) is
not applicable for all facilities within
the lease (or lease block) due to the type
of operation (e.g. drilling, production),
“no discharge” must be recorded for
those categories on the DMR. If all
facilities within a lease block have had
no activity dunng the reporting period.
then “no activity” must be written on
the DMR. All pages of the DMR must be
signed and certified as required by Part
lI.D.9 of these permits and submitted
when due,
The Perrnittee must complete all
empty blanks in the DMR unless there
has been absolutely no activity orno
discharge within the lease (or lease
block) for the entire reporting period. In
these cases. EPA Region VI will accept
a listing of leases or lease blocks with
no discharges or no activity, in lieu of
submitting actual DMR’s for these areas.
This listing must specify the permittee’s
NPDES General Permit Number, lease or
lease block description, and EPA-
assigned outfall number. The listing
must also include the certification
statement presented in Part 1l.D,9 of
these permits and an original signature
of the designated responsible officiaL
Upon receipt of a notification of
intent to be covered (see Part LA.2 of
these permits for facilities requiring
such notification), the permittee will be
notified of its specific outfall number
applicable to that lease (or lease block)
and will be informed of the discharge
monitoring report due date.
All notices and reports required under
this permit shall be sent to EPA Region
6 at the address below
Director, Water Management Division.
USEPA, Region 6. Enforcement
Branch (6W-EA), P.O. Box 50625,
Dallas, TX 75270
3. Additional Monitoring by the
Permittee
If the permittee monitors any
pollutant more frequently than required
by this permit. using test procedures
approved under 40 CFR Part 136 or as
specified in this permit, the results of
this monitoring shall be included in the
calculation and reporting of the data
submitted in the DMR. Such increased
monitoring frequency shall also be
indicated on the DMR.
4. Averaging of Measurements
Calculations for all limitations which
require averaging of measurements shall
utilize an arithmetic mean unless
otherwise specified by the Regional
Administrator in the permit.
5. Twenty-four Hour Reporting
a. For facilities which are allowed to
discharge produced water by Part LB.2.a
of Permit No. TXC290000, the permittee
shall report any noncompliance which
may endanger health or the
environment (including any spill that
requires oral reporting to the state
regulatory authority). Information shall
be provided orally within 24 hours from
the Lime the permittee becomes aware of
the circumstances. A written
submission shall also be provided
within 5 days of the time the perxnittee
becomes aware of the circumstances.
The written submission shall contain a
description of the noncompliance and
its cause: the period of noncompliance.
including exact dates and times, and if
the noncompliance has not been
corrected, the anticipated time it is
expected to continue; and steps taken or
planned to reduce. eliminate, and
prevent reoccurrence of the
noncompliance. The Regional
Administrator may waive the written
report on a case-by-case basis if the oral
report has been received within 24
hours.
The following shall be included as
information which must be reported
within 24 hours:
(1) Any unanticipated bypass which
exceeds any effluent limitation in the
permit;
(2) Any upset which exceeds any
effluent limitation in the permit.
(3) VIolations of a maximum daily
discharge limitation or daily minimum
toxicity limitation for any of the
pollutants listed by the Regional
Administrator in Part Ill of the permit to
be reported within 24 hours.
The reports should be made to Region
6 by telephone at (214) 665—6593. The
Regional Administrator may waive the
written report on a case-by-case basis if
the oral report has been received within
24 hours.
b. For all facilities prohibited from
discharging produced water, the-
permittee shall report any
noncompliance with these permits.
bypass or upset. Any information shall
4
-------
2392
Federal_Register I Vol. 60. No . 5 / Monday. January 9. 1995 / Notices
be provided orally within 24 hours from
the tune the permittee becomes aware of
the cutumstances. A written
submission shall also be provided
within 5 days of the time the perinittee
becomes aware of the circumstances.
The written submission shall contain a
description of the noncompliance and
its cause; the period of noncompliance.
including exact dates and times, and if
the noncompliance has not been
corrected, the anticipated time it is
expected to continue; and steps taken or
plans to reduce. elinunate. and prevent
reoccurrence of the noncompliance. The
24 hour oral reporting and follow up
written submission requirement in Part
ILD.5.b of these permits shall become
effective 60 days after the effective date
of these permits.
6. Other Noncompliance
For facilities which are allowed to
discharge by Part l.B.2.a of Permit No.
TXG290000. the permittee shall report
all instances of noncompliance not
reported under Part (1. Section D.
paragraphs 2 and 5 at the time
monitoring reports are submitted. The
reports shall contain the information
listed in Section 0. paragraph 5.
7. Other Information
Where the permittee becomes aware
that it failed to subnilt any relevant facts
in any report to the Regional
Administrator, it shall promptly submit
such facts or information.
8. Changes in Discharges of Toxic
Substances
The perrnittee shall notify the
Regional Administrator as soon as it
knows or has reason to believe:
a. That any activity has occurred or
will occur which would result in the
discharge. on a routine or frequent basis.
or any toxic pollutant which is not
limited in the permit. If that discharge
will exceed the highest of the
“notification levels” described in 40
CFR 122.42(a)(t).
b. That any activity has occurred or
will occur which would result in any
discharge. on a non-routin, or
infrequent basis, of a toxic pollutant
which is not limited In the permit. if
that discharge will exceed the highest of
the “notification levels” described in 40
CFR 122.42(a)(2).
9. Signatory Requirements
All reports, or information submitted
to the Regional Administrator shall be
signed and certified as follows:
a. For a corporation. By a responsible
corporate officer. For the purpose of this
section, a responsible corporate officer
means:
(1) A president. secretary, treasurer, or
vice-president of the corporation in
charge of a principle business function,
or decision making functions for the
corporation, or
(2) The manager of one or more
manufacturing, production. or operating
facilities employing more than 250
persons or having gross annual sales or
expenditures exceeding $25 million (in
second.quarter 1981) dollars), if
authority to sign documents has been
assigned or delegated to the manager in
accordance with corporate procedures.
b. For a partnership or sole
proprietorship. B ti general partner or
the proprietor, respectively.
c. For a municipality, State, Federal or
other public agency. Either a principle
executive office or ranking elected
official. For purposes of this section, a
principle executive officer of a Federal
agency includes:
(1) The chief executive officer of the
agency. or
(2) A senior executive officer having
responsibility for the overall operations
of a principle geographic unit of the
agency.
d. Alternatively, all reports required
by the permit and other information
requested by the Regional Administrator
may be signed by a person described
above or by a duly authorized
representative only if:
(1)’the authorizathrn is made in
writing by a person described above;
(2) the authorization specifies either
an individual or a position having
responsibility for the overall operation
of the regulated facility or activity, such
as the position of plant manager.
operator of a well or oil field.
superintendent, or position of
equivalent responsibility, or an
individual or position having overall
responsibility for environmental matters
for the company. A duly authorized
representative may thus be either a
individual or an individual occupying a
named position; and
(3) the written authorization is
submitted to the Regional
Administrator.
e. Certification. Any person signing a
document under this section shall make
the following certification:
I certify under penalty of law that this
document and all attachments were prepared
under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure
that qualified personnel properly gather and
evaluate the information submitted. Based on
my inquiry of the person or persons who
manage the system. or those persons directly
responsible for the gaiharing of the -
information, the information submitted is. to
the best of my knowledge and belief, true,
accurate and complete. I am aware that there
are significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of flr
and impnsomnent for knowing violations
10. Availability of Reports
Except for applications, effluent data.
and other data specified in 40 CFR
122.7, any information submitted
pursuant to this permit may be claimed
confidential by the submitter. If no
claim is made at the time of submission.
information may be made available to
the public without further notice.
Section E. Penalties for Violations of
Permit Conditions
1. Criminal
a. Negligent Violations
The Act provides that any person who
negligently violates permit conditions
implementing Sections 301. 302. 306.
307 or 308 of the Act is subject to a fine
of not less than $2500 nor more than
525.000 per day of violation, or by
imprisonment for not more than I sear.
or both.
b. Knowing Violations
The Act provides that any person who
knowingly violates permit conditions
implementing Sections 301. 302. 306,
307 or 308 of the Act is subject to a fine
of not less than $5,000 per day of
violation nor more than $50,000 per d
of violation, or by imprisonment for ni,
more than 3 years. or both.
C. Knowing Endangerment
The Act provides that any person who
knowingly violates permit conditions
implementing Sections 301. 302. 306.
307 or 308 of the Act and who knows -
at the time that he is placing another
person in imminent danger of death or
serious bodily injury is subject to a fine
of not more than 5250.000. or by
imprisonment for not more than 15
years. or both.
d. False Statements
The Act provides that any person who
knowingly makes any false material
statement, representation. or
certification in any application, record.
report. plan. or other document filed or
required to be maintained under the Act
or who knowingly falsifies, tampers
with, or renders inaccurate, any
monitoring device or method required
to be maintained under the Act, shall
upon conviction, be punished by a fine
of not more than $10,000 per day, or by
imprisonment for not more than 2 years.
or by both. If a conviction of a person
is for a violation committed after a first
conviction of such a person under this
paragraph. punishment shall be by a
fine of not more than $20,000 per day
of violation, or by imprisonment of nut
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 5 / Monday. January 9. 1995 / Notices
2393
more than 4 years. or by both (See
Section 309(cJ(4). of the Clean Water
Act).
2. Civil Penalties
The Act provides that any person who
violates a permit condition
implementing Sections 301. 302. 306,
307 or 308 of the Act is Subject to a civil
penalty not to exceed 525.000 per day
for each violation.
3. Administrative Penalties
The Act provides that any person who
violates a permit condition
implementing Sections 301. 302. 306.
307. 308. 318. or 405 of the Act is
subiect to a civil penalty not to exceed
$25 .000 pet day for each violation.
a. Class I Penalty
Not to exceed $10,000 per violation
nor shall the maximum amount exceed
525,000.
b Class I I Penalty
Not to exceed 310.000 per day for
each day during which the violations
continues nor shall the maximum
amount exceed 5125.000
Sect;on F. Definitions
All definitions in Section 502 of the
Act shall apply to this permit and are
incorporated herein by reference. Unless
otherwise specified in this permit.
additional definitions words or phrases
used in this permit are as follows:
1. Act means the Clean Water Act (33
U S C 1251 et. seq.) as amended.
2 Applicable effluent standards and
limit ations means all state and Federal
effluent standards and limitations to
which a discharge is subject under the
Act, including, but not limited to.
effluent limitations, standards of
performance. toidc effluent standards
and prohibitions. and preueatrnent
standards.
3. Applicable water quality standards
means all water quality standards to
which a discharge is subject under the
Act and which have been (a) approved
or permitted to remain in effect by the
Administrator following submission to
him/her, pursuant to Section 303(a) of
the Act, or (b) promulgated by the
Administrator pursuant to Section
303(b) or 303(c) of the Act.
4. Bypass means the intentional
diversion of waste streams from any
portion of a treatment facility.
5. Coastal waters are defined as
waters of the United States (as defined
at 40 CFR 122.2) located landward of
he territorial seas.
6. Daily Discharge means the
discharge of a pollutant measured
during a calendar day or any 24-hour
period that reasonably represents the
calendar day for purposes of sampling.
For pollutants with limits expressed in
units of measurement other than mass.
the “daily discharge” is calculated as
the average measurement of the
poLlutant over the sampling day. “Daily
discharge” determination of
concentration made using a composite
sample shall be the concentration of the
composite sample. When grab samples
are used, the “daily di thni ’ge”
determination of concentration shall be
arithmetic average (weighted by flow
value) of all samples collected during
that sampling day.
7. Daily Maximum discharge
limitation means the highest allowable
“daily discharge” during the calendar
month.
8. Environmental Protection Agency
means the (iS. Environmental
Protection Agency.
9. Monthly Average (also known as
daily average) discharge limitations
means the highest allowable average of
“daily discharge(s)” over a calendar
month, calculated as the sum of all
“daily discharge(s)” measured during a
calendar month divided by the number
of “daily discharge(s)” during that
month. When the permit establishes
monthly average concentration effluent
limitations or conditions, the monthly
average concentration means the
arithmetic average (weighted by flow) of
all “daily discharge(sr of concentration
determined during the calendar month.
10. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System means the national
program for issuing. revoking and
reissuing, terminating, momtonng and
enforcing permits, and imposing and
enforcing pretreatment requirements,
under Sections 307, 318. 402 and 405 of
the Act,
11, Producedsand means sand and
other particulate matter from the
producing formation and production
piping (including corrosion products).
as well as source sand and hydrofrac
sand. Produced sand also includes
sludges generated by any chemical
polymer used in a produced water
treatment system.
12. Produced water means water
(brine) brought up from the
hydrocarbon-bearing strata during the
extraction of oil and gas. and can
include formation water. injection
water, and any chemicals added down
hole or during the oil/water separation
process.
13. Regional Administrator means the
Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6.
14. Severe property damage means
substantial physical damage to property.
damage to treatment facilities which
causes them to become inoperable, or
substantial and permanent loss of
natural resources which can reasonably
be expected to occur in the absence of
bypass. Severe property damage does
not mean economic loss caused by
delays in production.
15. Temtonal seas refers to “the belt
of the seas measured from the line of
ordinary low water along that ‘portion of
the coast which is in direct contact with
the open sea and the line marking the
seaward limit of inland waters, and
extending seaward a distance of three
16. Upset means an exceptional
incident in which there is unintentional
and temporary noncompliance with
technology.based permit effluent
limitations because of factors beyond
the reasonable control of the permittee
An upset does not include
noncompliance to the extent caused by
operational error, improperly designed
treatment facilities, inadequate
treatment facihties. lack of preventive
maintenance, or careless or improper
operation.
Section C. Monitoring and Records
United States EnvironmentaJ Protection
Agency, Region 6, In Rm NPDES Permit
Nos. LAG290000 and TXG290000.
General Administrative Compliance
Order
The following Findings are made and
Order issued pursuant to the authority
vested in the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
by Section 309(a)(3) of the Clean Water
Act (hereinafter “the Act”). 33 U.S.C.
l319(a)(3 1. and duly delegated to the
Regional Administrator. Region 6. and
duly redelegated to the undersigned
Director, Water Management Division,
Region 6. Failure to comply with the
interim requirements established in this
Order constitutes a violation of this
Order and the NPDES permits.
Findings
I
The term “waters of the United
States” is defined at 40 C.F.R. 122.2.
The term “coastal” is defined in NPDES
Permits LAG290000 and TXC290000
and includes facilities which would be
considered “Onshore” but for the
decision in API v. EPA 661 F 2 340 (5th
Cir. 1981). The term “existing” means
spudded prior to the effective date of
NPDES Permits LAG290000 and
TXGZ9 0 00 0.
II
Pursuant to the authority of Section
402(a)(1) of the Act, 33 USC. § 1342,
-------
2304
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No . 5 I Monday. January 9. 1995 / Notices
Region 6 issued National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permits No. LAC290000 and
TXG290000 with an effective date of
February 8. 1995. These oermits
prohibit the discharge oi produced
water and produced sand derived from
Oil and Gas Point Source Category
facilities to “coastal” waters of
Louisiana and Texas in accordance with
effluent limitations and other conditions
set forth in Parts I and II of these
permits Facilities covered by these
permits include those in the Coastal
Subcategory (40 CFR 435. Subpart D).
the Stripper Subcategory (40 CFR 435,
Subpart F) that discharge to “coastal”
waters of Louisiana and Texas. and the
Offshore Subcategory (40 CFR 435.
Subpart A) which discharge to ‘coastal”
waters of Louisiana and Texas.
III
Respondents herein are permittees
subtect to General NPDES Permit Nos
LAG290000 and/or TXG 290000 and
who
A. Discharge produced water derived
from an existing Coastal. Stripper or
Offshore Subcategory well or wells to
“coastal” waters of Texas or Louisiana
on the effective date of LAG290000 or —
TXG290 00 0.
B. Discharge produced water derived
from an existing Coastal Subcategory
well or wells located in Louisiana or
Texas to waters of the United States
outside Louisiana or Texas “coastal”
waters on the effective date of
LAG290000 or TXG290000.
C. Are required by Permits No.
LAG290000 or TXG290000 to meet the
requirement of No Discharge of
produced water and are taking
affirmative steps to meet that
requirement.
0. Have submitted an “Administrative
Order Notice” Such Notices shall be
sent to: Enforcement Branch (6W—EA).
Region 6. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency. P.O. Box 50625.
Dallas TX 75270. Upon submission of
such an Admirustrative Order Notice, a
permittee shall be a Respondent under
this General Adniuustrative Order. The
terms of each Administrative Order
Notice submitted shall be considered
terms of this Order and shall be
enforceable against the Respondent
submitting the Administrative Order
Notice. Each Administrative Order
Notice must include:
1. Identification of the facility by
name and its location (by lease, lease
block, field or prospect name), the name
and address of its operator. and the
name, address and telephone number of
a contact person.
2. A certification signed by a person
meeting the requirements of Part II.
Section 0.9 (Signatory Requirements) of
Permits LAG290000 and TXG290000
stating that a Compliance Plan has been
prepared for the- facility in accordance
with this Order. A copy of this plan
shall not be included with the
Administrative Order Notice, but shall
be made available to EPA upon request.
3. A Compliance Plan shall include a
description of the measures to be taken.
along with a schedule, to cease
discharge of produced water to waters of
the United States as expeditiously as
possible.
IV
To maintain oil arid gas production
and comply with the permits’
prohibition on the discharge of
produced water, a significant number of
Respondents will have to rein)ect their
produced water. A Lick of access to the
finite number of exitting Class II
disposal wells, state UIC permit writers.
and drilling contractors may cause non-
compliance for a significant number of
Respondents. In addition, time will be
required for some Respondents to
reroute produced water collection lines
to transport the produced water to
inlection wells.
V
Respondents may reasonably perform
all actions necessary to cease their
discharges of produced water no later
than January 1, 1997.
Order
Based on the foregoing Findings, it is
Ordered that Respondents:
A. Fully comply with all conditions of
NPDES Permits No. LAG290000 and
TXG290000 except for the prohibition
on the discharge of produced water and
except for the require neAt that all
discharges of produced water he
reported within twenty-four hours.
B. Complete all activities necessary to
attain full and continuance compliance
with NPDES Permits No. LAG290000
and TXG290000 as soon as possible. but
in no case later than January 1, 1997.
C, Operate and maintain all existing
pollution control equipment, including
existing oil/water separation equipment.
in such a manner as to minimize thi
discharge of pollutant ; contained in
produced water at all limes until such
time as respondents cEase their
discharges of produced water
D. Submit notice to the Water
Enforcement Branch of EPA Region 6
when produced water discharges subject
to this Order have ceased.
E. Subiect to NPDES Permit
LAG290000 comply at all times with
Part I. Section B ,1.b of said permit.
requiring that Respondents meet any
more stringent requirements containe
in Louisiana Water Quality Regulation.
LAC. 33,LX,7.708.
Nothing herein shall preclude
additional enforcement action.
The effective date of this Order shall
be the effective date of NPDES Permits
No. LAG290000 and TXG2G0000.
IFR Doc. 95—416 Filed 1—6—95.645 .oml
BILLiNG COOE 6560-60-P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Public Information Collection
Approved by Office of Management
and Budget
December 30. 1994
The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) has received Offii:e
of Management and Budget (0MB)
approval for the following public
information collection pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub
L. 96—511. For further information
contact Shoko B. Hair. Federal
Communications Commission. (2021
418—1379.
Federat Lommunicatimss Commission
0MB Control No.: 3060-0626.
Title: implementation of Sections 3(n)
and 332 of the Communications Act—
Third Report and Order. Can. Docket
No. 93—25 2.
Expiration Date: 11/30197.
Estimated Annual Burden. 6923 total
annual hours; 50 - 10 hours per
response.
Descriptiorr In the Third Report and
Order in Can. Docket No. 93—252. the
Commission adopted changes to its
technical, operational, and licensing
rules for private mobile radio service
licensees to implement Sections 3(n)
and 332 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended. These rules are
necessary to implement the statute and
to establish regulatory symmetry among
similar mobile services.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretor,’
FR Doc. 95—373 Filed 1—6—95. 8 45 aml
BILUNG CODE E?12 -OI-F
Public Information Coirection
Approved by Office of Management
and Budget
December 30. 1904
The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) has receited OIFiu’
------- |